Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINIAN ARAB REFUGEES

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the weekly amount and variety of food by weight per capita in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency camps for Palestine refugees.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to correct the information which was given in reply to his previous Question on 2nd March. As the answer is equally long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: Does my hon. Friend consider that this ration is sufficient to keep the people in the camps keen and energetic and desirous to work? Is this the ration that has been given to 900,000 people during the six years that they have been in those camps?

Mr. Turton: The correction shows that these refugees are still getting a ration

of 10,817 calories, which is slightly more than that stated in the previous answer. The correction shows that the build-up is very different, because the refugees are eating much more flour than was stated previously to the House and much smaller quantities of pulse and oil.

Mr. Hastings: Are these refugees getting sufficient fresh food and animal food, that is to say, proteins, to keep them in good health?

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman studies the answer he will see the amount of protein they are getting in the ration. The answer will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Donaldson: Did my hon. Friend really mean 10,000 calories a day? It seems to be a large consumption for a day.

Mr. Turton: I said 10,000 calories. I did not specify in what period.

Following is the answer:

The weekly quantities per refugee in summer are:

and in winter each receives also

Children under one year, who do not receive the basic ration, are given 1,200 grammes of whole milk daily. Supplementary foods in varying quantities are given to children between six months and two years; to pregnant and nursing women; and to others according to medical advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS (INDIAN PROPOSAL)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Disarmament Commission is to meet; and whether he will instruct the representative of the United Kingdom Government to support the proposal of the Government of India for a stand-still agreement on nuclear tests.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): The Disarmament Commission will be meeting to receive the report of its Sub-Committee. The date of the meeting has not yet been fixed, since it would clearly be undesirable for it to meet before the Sub-Committee has finished its meetings. The second half of the Question does not therefore arise at present, but I would point out that the Indian proposal suggests a moratorium on hydrogen bomb explosions only.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the great concern which is felt in many quarters in many countries because the tests should be continuing, is it not most regrettable that the Disarmament Commission has not yet met to consider a proposal made six months ago? Will not the Foreign Secretary do something to ensure that the Disarmament Commission meets as soon as possible?

Sir A. Eden: The Disarmament Commission has met and it has set up a Sub-Committee to do the work it is now doing which the Commission entrusted to it. It is, of course, the most important work of all to try to get a comprehensive agreement about the disarmament problem in general. This Sub-Committee is now working, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, with the principal Powers concerned at present. I think we should allow that work to have the maximum chance of being accomplished.

Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Disarmament Commission intends to consider the proposal of the Government of India?

Sir A. Eden: No, I cannot, because it would not be for me alone to reply. I imagine it would first require to have the report of the Sub-Committee on the work it has entrusted to it.

Mr. Strachey: Would the right hon. Gentleman now explain what he meant the other day when he spoke on this subject? Did he mean any more than that it might be possible for Governments to go on with development work and with stockpiling nuclear weapons even though tests were abolished? If so, is this a good reason for refusing to favour the abolition of tests?

Sir A. Eden: I do not know whether I ought to go into all that again now. It was explained at some length in the debate. As regards the merits of this particular scheme, I am not sure how complete it would be, because not only would those countries which have already exploded hydrogen bombs be able to increase their stockpiles of thermo-nuclear weapons, but also test programmes of other nuclear weapons could proceed uninterrupted.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the explosions that cause the dangerous contamination about which scientists have expressed so much concern? Did not the Assembly agree that this Indian proposal should be referred to the Disarmament Commission? Is it to be postponed and not to receive any consideration until there is a complete draft disarmament treaty?

Sir A. Eden: There has been no question of postponing it. The Disarmament Commission is, after all, master of its own business, and it consists of a large number of nations, which decided, I think perfectly rightly, to entrust the work to a small Sub-Committee of the principal Powers concerned. It also instructed it to work in London. It is now doing that. That was the instruction given, which I personally think it was right to give. Anyhow, it was perfectly entitled to give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES

DISPUTE

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when his Department last discussed with the Icelandic Government the fishing dispute between the two countries.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the settlement of the dispute with Iceland concerning the extent of Icelandic territorial waters.

Sir Anthony Eden: The confidential discussion under a chairman appointed by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is continuing; the most recent meeting was on 10th March. There are also frequent contacts with the Icelandic Government through the diplomatic channel. In view of these facts, I cannot make a statement at the present time.

Dr. King: Since Iceland is a very proud and very friendly nation, and since the only people who benefit by the deadlock are fishermen of both countries, on the one hand, and enemies of freedom, on the other, will the right hon. Gentleman not use his influence with the British fishermen to withdraw the ban so that we may negotiate an honourable settlement?

Sir A. Eden: We have tried to get a settlement by every kind of method. We thought that our initiative in proposing O.E.E.C. as a means was a quite sensible move, and we are grateful to the Swiss delegates for their assistance. I think that we must leave it to O.E.E.C. to go on trying to find a solution, which I desire as keenly as does the hon. Member. This business has gone on too long already.

CHINA (SHANGHAI WATERWORKS EMPLOYEES)

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with the Chinese Government relating to the blocked pension funds of retired employees of the Shanghai Waterworks Company Limited; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Turton: On 29th November last Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking addressed a Note to the Chinese Government asking them to take steps to arrange for the payment of pensions to the former pensioners of the Shanghai Waterworks Company. No reply has been received to this Note.

Mr. Gough: Will Her Majesty's Government impress upon the Chinese Government that the withholding of this comparatively small sum of money is causing a very grave hardship to a small number of elderly and ageing people who, in their time, have given very great service to the Chinese people?

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. We made it clear to the Chinese Government that we hold them responsible for the meeting of this and all other outstanding obligations of the company, and we shall continue to press that on the Chinese Government.

EGYPT-ISRAEL FRONTIER (INCIDENTS)

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the offer by Israel to Egypt to abandon all frontier incidents between the two States if Egypt will give a similar undertaking; whether he will use his endeavours to persuade Egypt to give such similar undertaking; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir Anthony Eden: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the speech of the Israeli delegate in the Security Council's debate on 23rd March. While the matter is under discussion in the Security Council I should prefer not to comment further, except to say that under the Egypt-Israel Armistice Agreement of 23rd February, 1949, Egypt and Israel are already both bound to refrain from hostile acts against each other.

Mr. Janner: In view of his statement, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Egypt continues to declare that it is in a state of war with Israel and, in consequence of that, is inciting people on the border to commit acts of violence against Israel? Is he also aware that as recently as the 24th of this month an attack was made on a wedding party in the West Negeb, in the village of Patish, where a woman was killed and 19 people were wounded? Will he do something about enforcing the armistice arrangements on the Egyptians?

Sir A. Eden: I am also aware, as I think is the hon. Member, that the account which he has given gives the wrongs on the one side only and not the wrongs on the other. I am only too aware that they exist on both sides. We are doing what we can to improve the situation.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the responsibility for this situation must rest with


those who refuse to negotiate to make a permanent peace?

Sir A. Eden: The responsibility, without any equivocation, can well be divided on this matter. General Burns, to whose efforts I should like to pay a very warm tribute, has certain proposals of his own which we shall do all we can to support. This matter can be handled provided both sides are prepared to handle it reasonably, but I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not press me to say whether I regard it as being so handled at the moment by either side.

COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Reeves: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he will not give instructions to the British Government's representative on the Commission of Human Rights to promote the inclusion of a clause in the Covenants giving human beings the right to decide the method of the disposal of their bodies after death, including that of cremation.

Mr. Turton: The Human Rights Commission has already completed its work on the draft Covenants. Her Majesty's Government do not consider the matter suitable for inclusion in an international agreement, since it would conflict with various religious practices as well as climatic and other local circumstances.

Mr. Reeves: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which similarly conflict with religious or national views and that the idea of the Covenants is to widen the area of freedom. Surely the British Government are interested in that proposition?

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir, but I am very doubtful whether the question of the disposal of one's body after death can be strictly regarded as a universal, fundamental right.

DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS (STATEMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he can report in respect of the present

sittings of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission; and when the proceedings are likely to be concluded.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be making a statement on this subject at the end of Questions.

WORLD PEACE (FOUR-POWER TALKS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the four-Power talks which they are proposing, after ratification of the Paris Agreements, shall be at the highest Ministerial level.

Sir Anthony Eden: No, Sir. These and other connected questions are matters for consultation with our allies, but, now that the French Parliament have voted in favour of ratification, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the procedure I outlined to the House during the debate on 14th March. That procedure we shall now be able to follow.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statements made both by President Eisenhower and Marshal Bulganin supporting the holding of such a conference, can we take it that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that there is no obstacle now to the holding of a four-Power conference? Are Her Majesty's Government going to take the initiative in proposing that it should be held as soon as arrangements can be made for it?

Sir A. Eden: We are already in consultation with our allies as to the methods by which we can now go ahead. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to look at what I said. It gives in full the procedure which we propose to follow and the methods of consultation which we think desirable. Certainly they will include meetings, it may be in the first instance at official level, then at the Foreign Ministers level, and possibly at other levels also if all goes well; but the plans are set out in that statement.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the probability that the West German Federal Government may wish to have diplomatic representation in Moscow, now that West Germany has regained her sovereignty,


will that Government be entitled to take part in any quadripartite negotiations with Russia?

Sir A. Eden: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that poses a certain number of questions of representation, not only on the one side but also on the other. There is the question: if one part of Germany were represented, what is the position of the other part of Germany? Nobody understands that better than the German Federal Republic, but we fully recognise the need of keeping the German Federal Government fully informed and consulted at every stage.

Mr. Henderson: Are we to understand that arrangements are now being made for meetings at official level with a view to preparing a conference?

Sir A. Eden: We are in discussion with our allies on that very point. Perhaps I can best satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman by saying that nothing is excluded from our minds in the way of machinery to bring about the results we all require.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Householders' Complaints (Fuel Overseers)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the confusion that still exists as to the rôle of fuel overseers in regard to the supply of low-grade coal for domestic allocations; and if he will define the circumstances in which he has instructed the fuel overseers to remind merchants of their duty in this matter.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on 15th November. I have no reason to think that local fuel overseers are in any doubt about their responsibilities.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all complaints about bad coal, whether from large or small consumers, are thoroughly investigated and that if slate and other unburnable material is returned it is replaced by proper coal? If not, is not that an awful swindle on the wretched housewife who has paid for solid fuel?

Mr. Lloyd: There are arrangements, which have been made between the National Coal Board and the merchants, for doing that very thing.

Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what positive steps are being taken by local fuel overseers to protect the customers and the housewives from paying for Grade 3 coal when in fact Grade 5 is going into their cellars?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different question.

Quality

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to make greater endeavour to improve the quality of household coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Board are making strenuous efforts to solve this problem: methods of hand-cleaning are being improved; some 140 washeries have already been built or extended, another 65 are under construction and some 82 per cent. of deep-mined coal output is now cleaned.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the present general dissatisfaction with the quality of household coal and its very high price, not least in my own constituency of Solihull, and can he not give us an indication of when there is likely to be a substantial improvement in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the House knows that the difficulty arises from the fact that geological conditions in the mines are more difficult than they were in the past. However, the 65 new washeries now under construction, when finished, will account for the cleaning of an additional 40 million tons of coal.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not still the cheapest coal in Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: That is the fact.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that in Western Europe there is at present a large surplus of coal suitable for domestic purposes, and as that is a soft currency source and our policy is the liberalisation of West European trade, why should we not import unlimited quantities of coal from Western Europe in order to get rid of house-coal rationing in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a very interesting suggestion.

Mr. Holt: Is it acceptable?

Burning Soil Tips

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board requiring them to take steps to prevent the burning of soil tips.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a great problem to the people in the coalmining areas, and that to the housewife it presents a continual fight against dirt, and to other people a fight against pollution of the atmosphere, so that the windows of houses and schools in the vicinity cannot be opened, and would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I know that it is a serious problem, but it would not be proper for me to try to deal with this by a general direction to the National Coal Board, because Parliament has already dealt with it in a series of statutes and the initiative is with the local authority.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Might not the Minister ask the National Coal Board to put its Research Department to finding out ways of dealing with this grave abuse which really ought to have been ended long ago?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is definitely the case.

Unrestricted Fuels (Distribution)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure an equitable and balanced distribution of such grades and qualities of coal as are not subject to the provisions of orders issued by his Department stipulating maximum allocations of coal to householders, annually.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The distribution of unrestricted types of solid fuel is at present settled by the producers and the coal merchants, and I do not think we should improve it by the introduction of new controls.

Mr. Nabarro: In the absence of national newspapers to report the exact circumstances, may I ask my right hon.

Friend whether he is aware that Worcester, Kidderminster, Stourport on Severn, and other Severnside towns, are now badly inundated, and as there are practically no supplies of house coal, either rationed or unrationed, available in merchants' yards in the area, will my right hon. Friend take emergency steps to rush supplies to these severely stricken flooded areas of Worcestershire?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but even before the advice of my hon. Friend I had the advantage of reading this news in the " Birmingham Post," and I have asked my Departmental representative to see that everything possible is done to help.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend realise what seems to have escaped the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that the Severn also flows through Shropshire?

Allocations

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the Coal Distribution Orders now being 12 years old and inappropriate to current circumstances for supply and pricing of house coal, including maxima allocation provisions, whether he will withdraw the orders and substitute new orders based on revised maxima allocations, continued price control and seasonal price differentials of sufficient value to encourage such householders as have accommodation for summer stocking of house coal so to do on a larger scale, thereby helping deliveries in periods of snow, ice and fog, to those householders who have no such accommodation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: While I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that householders should stock coal during the summer on a larger scale than in the past, I do not think this purpose would be furthered by amending the orders in the way he has proposed, since I already have power under them to vary the maximum permitted quantities in any period and there have been differential summer prices for some years past.

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Mr. Nabarro: May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was rather slower in rising than usual.

Mr. Nabarro: With respect, Sir, I was preparing a very short supplementary question. [An HON. MEMBER: " That is unusual."] May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the orders to which this Question refers are now 12 years old, they were designed for the great stringency of the war years and are not appropriate to present circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite appreciate that, but I hope that they will not last so far in the future as they have lasted in the past.

Supplies, Slough

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will speed up the delivery of coal, coke and anthracite in Slough and district.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I know that the coal merchants in Slough and district are making every effort to deliver coal and coke as quickly as possible, and in any case of serious delay the local fuel overseer will take speedy action.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I drew attention to this shortage before the end of last year, that there are cases in Slough now where the supply of anthracite ordered at the end of December has not yet been delivered, that it is expected there will still be a month's delay, that instead of buying coal people are buying logs, and that 81 chimneys have been on fire since the beginning of the year? In view of all these facts, will the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Lloyd: Anthracite is particularly short.

Production, Costs and Manpower

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what causes he attributes the decline in the production of coal in Great Britain during the first 10 weeks of 1955 as compared with the corresponding period in 1954.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Nearly half the decline in production from the deep mines is due to the different incidence of the New Year holidays, and the other main reason is that output per man has been slightly lower. Bad weather has affected attendance at the pits and seriously interfered with opencast production.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average cost of producing one ton of coal in Great Britain during the first 10 weeks of 1955; and how this compares with the cost for the corresponding period in 1954.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that these figures are not yet available.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average number of persons employed, and the average weekly wage paid, to surface and underground workers, respectively, in the coal-mining industry in Great Britain during the first 10 weeks of 1955 and for the corresponding period in 1954.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Five hundred and sixty thousand underground and 147,500 on the surface, compared with 558,800 and 149,700 in 1954. The wages figures are not yet available.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these very disturbing figures about coal production, the falling off in supply and the diminishing quality of the coal, are having a serious effect on the cost of living, and are bad not only for industry but for all consumers? Is there no hope of any improvement in this respect?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to say that output has improved substantially in the last two weeks.

Fuel Efficiency and Substitutes

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to state the steps he is taking to encourage the use of oil as a substitute for coal in industry and else-where; and the approximate estimated saving in annual tons at the end of the next five-year period.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am discussing with Government Departments, nationalised industries and other public authorities how they can save coal by using more oil; Government loans are available to industrialists who can make worth while savings by changing from coal to oil, and I am glad to say that the use of oil is increasing rapidly.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman fully aware of the urgency of this matter, and is he really bringing pressure to bear, particularly on private industry?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to bring pressure, but encouragement.

Mr. Holt: May I ask the Minister why, if he is encouraging the import of oil, he does not encourage still more imports of coal, so that coal rationing can be abolished?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a net balance of payments advantage in importing more oil.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the increasing coal shortage and the urgent need for a positive inducement to conserve industrial coal supplies, he will now reconsider his previous decision against a levy on private industry for the funds of the Fuel Efficiency Company.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Could not tremendous savings be made in industry by fuel conservation, and is there any hope of this being done unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared either to impose some penalty or to give more positive inducements?

Mr. Lloyd: The National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service is making good progress. Hon. Members may have noticed its more aggressive advertising campaign in all sorts of technical journals.

Mr. McAdden: Are we to understand that, the coal industry now having been nationalised, we now have to pay a levy for using its products?

Mr. Lloyd: That was not my suggestion.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what estimate he has made of United Kingdom coal consumption for the year commencing 1st April, 1955, compared with the consumption figure for 12 months ending on that date of approximately 214 million tons; and, in view of increasing production and coal requirements of industry and the small increase in coal production over the last three years, what steps he proposes to meet the mounting coal deficiency by reduced exports of coal, or increased imports, or by promoting improved fuel efficiency and oil-for-coal substitution or otherwise.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Consumption may increase another four or five million tons in the next coal year, and the Government are taking action in all the various ways mentioned by my hon. Friend to bridge the likely gap between requirements and home supplies.

Mr. Nabarro: Might I return to the earlier Question? Is it not a fact that at the present time we are spending very large sums of money in importing, for example, fruit from Western Europe and elsewhere and paying for it in soft currency, and yet it is said that we cannot afford to import large quantities of coal which are surplus in Western Europe at the present time? Might I have an answer to that specific point?

Mr. Lloyd: It is necessary to import enough coal to ensure that the fuel supplies of the country are maintained during the winter so that industry, etc., can carry on. It is another matter to suggest that we should import that additional quantity at the cost of foreign exchange, even though not in dollars, to do away with coal rationing, which I should very much like to do.

Mr. Robens: With regard to the oil-for-coal substitution suggestion made in the Question, has the right hon. Gentleman considered extending the industrial loans scheme, in view of the heavy capital expenditure required, to domestic consumers who wish to change over to oil?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, not to domestic users. The scheme has been extended so that it can be used by industrialists who wish to change over to oil in suitable circumstances.

Mr. Robens: I understand that, but does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there may be many domestic consumers who would change over except for the heavy capital cost involved? Will he consider extending the industrial scheme to domestic users who would like to take advantage of it?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a useful suggestion.

Mr. Strachey: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice his hon. Friend's conversion to selective import controls, in this case coal for fruit?

Merchants' Stocks, London

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that, despite the emergency arrangements which he recently made, many London merchants have no stocks of coal and are unable to supply their customers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: At this time of year merchants are accustomed to rely almost entirely on current supplies from the coalfields, and I am glad to say that these are now coming forward well.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the statement he has just made and the statement that he made last week are, in the words of the Society of Coal Merchants, not in accordance with their experience? Is he further aware that in Shoreditch a depot which supplies 20,000 people has no coal and that the railway coal trucks are standing empty and idle? Will he, therefore, do something positive to help people who have to buy their coal every week and rely on it not only for heat but often for cooking?

Mr. Lloyd: The London Society of Coal Merchants announced only the other day that the idea that there was a serious coal famine in London was a silly misstatement.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not the coal shortage typical of any nationalised industry or State monopoly—worse service at increased cost?

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that his answer is not in accordance with the facts within the knowledge of almost all hon. Members, and that people, particularly in London, are really suffering acute hardship because they just cannot get coal?

Mr. Lloyd: More coal has been delivered in London during the last three weeks than at almost any comparable time in the last eight years.

Exports

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tons of coal he estimates will be exported in 1955.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The total will partly depend upon changes in United

Kingdom coal output, but my present estimate is that we shall export between 12 and 12½ million tons in all.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that with imports of coal running at the present rate we shall be very much out of pocket? Have we not spent about £16 million on coal imports during 1954? Is it not stupid and crazy to go on exporting coal and then have to make up the gap by importing it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have previously told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a need to keep a foothold in our traditional markets in the interests of the coal industry. It is usual for a coal-producing country like Germany both to import and export coal continually, which is not so foolish as it sounds, because there are different varieties.

Household Fuels

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will issue leaflets and small posters available for distribution or display by local authorities and others showing the respective thermal content, domestic value, financial economy and smoke diminution of various types of fuel and power, with a view to giving guidance to and encouraging discrimination by domestic and other users.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I doubt whether guidance given in this way would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that housewives and others are sometimes misled and sometimes misinformed about different types of fuel in respect to economy, reduction in the amount of smoke and so forth? As there is widespread ignorance on the matter and a desire for illumination, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his desire but not in the method he proposes. I consider that much useful progress has been made by the new scheme of the Coal Utilisation Council, which has arranged with approved suppliers for advice to be given to housewives by people trained in these matters. It is better that housewives should have advice from trained men than be confused by a table of thermal statistics.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action is to be taken to have a thorough investigation into the statement contained in the Report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, indicating that this country is paying unreasonably high prices for oil; and, in view of the importance that this has in respect to the economic life and standard of living in this country, if he will deal with the matter as one of urgency.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Report prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission is being closely examined.

Mr. Dodds: But will not the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about it? How long is this examination to take and, in view of the great effect on the cost of living, is it being dealt with as a matter of urgency and of outstanding importance?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not prepared to say anything more until the examination has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Foodstuffs (Overseas Storage)

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Food what foodstuffs are at present being stored by his Department abroad; and in what countries these foodstuffs are so stored.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Meat is being stored in Germany and Belgium, bacon in Denmark, sugar in Holland and cheese in Belgium.

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an assurance that no more food will be stored abroad?

Dr. Hill: No more food will be stored abroad than is absolutely essential.

Meat

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food how much frozen meat held in Government account is in cold storage at home and on our behalf in other countries; what action is being taken to release shipping serving as floating

warehouses; and what is the total cost per week for meat storage at the latest available date.

Dr. Hill: On 18th March, about 68,000 tons in United Kingdom stores, 5,000 tons in a refrigerated ship, and 19,000 tons in Continental stores. The refrigerated ship will be released on 24th May. The total weekly cost of Ministry storage is about £47,000.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the cost of frozen meat in the shops is much too high? As the cost involved in his policy of paying £2,000 or £3,000 a week for ships is added to the cost of meat, housewives will, once again, have a very bad deal because of the muddle in the Ministry of Food.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will realise that on 28th February there was a substantial cut in the price at which the Ministry sold its frozen meat and that the price is running at about half that for home-killed meat in the wholesale market. I appreciate that it is necessary to make available the present quantities of imported meat at reasonable retail prices.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to Dominion producers by the suspension of meat shipments and in order to reduce accumulated stocks in the United Kingdom, he will make a further reduction in the price charged by his Department for imported meat, and so benefit the housewives and reduce the cost of living.

Dr. Hill: It would be contrary to sound commercial practice to forecast price changes.

Mr. Collins: If the Minister cannot accept this suggestion, will he say what are his Department's proposals for relieving the present congestion, as it may well mean that if the trouble continues a shortage of supplies will eventually arise from the situation?

Dr. Hill: I have already informed the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) what has been done. We shall, of course, watch the situation and make such price changes as seem desirable.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food how far the recent reduction by his


Department in the price charged to merchants for imported meat involves selling at a loss; and what is the extent of the loss.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the current rate of loss, expressed as a percentage, on the realisation of his Department's stocks of imported meat.

Dr. Hill: It is not the practice to disclose the day-by-day results of the Department's trading operations.

Mr. Collins: If the Minister cannot disclose the day-to-day results, can he at least say whether a loss is being made or not so that we shall then have a better opportunity of judging the wisdom or otherwise of his Department's action?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will realise, from what I said earlier, that the stocks are not being sold at a profit.

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that only last month his right hon. Friend said that these stocks were being sold at a profit? On the Supplementary Estimates he said that he thought that there would be a profit on the sale of imported meat. What has happened in the meantime to bring about the change?

Dr. Hill: I have already referred to the cut in prices made on 28th February. That is the relevant fact.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Do not the answers to these questions show that the sooner my hon. Friend speeds up his policy of getting out of the business altogether the better it will be?

Dr. Hill: No doubt my hon. Friend will be in attendance later in the day.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will control the excessive profit margin in the present retail price of imported meat.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. My Department has, through the retail butchers' associations, circulated a letter drawing attention to the disadvantages of averaging out the prices of home-killed and imported meat. It now remains with the butchers to see that the public is enabled to take full advantage of the ample supplies of low-priced frozen meat now available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What has the Ministry done to follow up this request to the butchers? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the profit on the import of meat is far higher than it should be, so that the butchers can reduce prices of fresh meat? Does he not agree that the only effect of this hampering of the law of supply and demand, which is one of the sacred cows of the Conservative Party, is to intensify the demand for fresh meat?

Dr. Hill: There has been some result from the letter which has already been issued, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is necessary for butchers to drop this averaging out procedure in order that the public may purchase frozen meat at a reasonable price.

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Food how the general level of wholesale prices for home-killed and imported meat, respectively, has moved since decontrol.

Dr. Hill: Wholesale prices vary in different markets. But for the week ending 19th March, Smithfield prices for home-killed beef and lamb were from 10 to 35 per cent. higher than under control. Home-killed pork was from 35 per cent. lower to 10 per cent. higher. Ministry imported meat was about 20 per cent. lower on average than under control. Privately imported new season's frozen. meat was on average also below control prices.

Mr. Thompson: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether he is able to rely on adequate supplies of this meat until the flush season for home-killed meat comes along?

Dr. Hill: In the aggregate, there is an ample supply of meat to maintain the present level of consumption, but to some extent it does involve a switch to frozen beef in the early months of the year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary send another letter to the meat trade pointing out that in the opinion of the Ministry the retail price of imported meat is far higher than it should be?

Dr. Hill: Of course, I will consider any suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Condensed Milk

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of of Food if he is aware of the concern at the large stocks of condensed milk held by his Department when liquid milk is plentiful; and what action is being taken to ensure that stocks are disposed of before becoming unfit for human consumption.

Dr. Hill: My Department agreed in 1954 to dispose of the balance of its commercial stocks of condensed milk over a period, so as to avoid dislocating the home manufacturing and marketing programme. The greater part of the stock has already been sold and sales are continuing satisfactorily.

Mr. Dodds: While I appreciate the point about " over a period," is it not a fact that much of the condensed milk was bought in 1953 with a guarantee of about six months in which it would be fit for human consumption? Are not the Dutch Government upset that the milk will be sold miscoloured, which will be a very bad advertisement for the product?

Dr. Hill: The stocks of condensed milk are regularly examined and the proportion found to be unsound is no greater than it was some years ago. The position is carefully watched all the time.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that the guarantee given for it in 1953 was six months and that, like cheese, it will be kept too long and once against the taxpayers will have to pay for it?

Eggs

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Food how the average retail prices paid for eggs in 1954 compare with the prices paid in 1953.

Dr. Hill: The average retail price for home-produced hen eggs for the financial year 1954–55 was about 4s. 2d. per dozen compared with about 4s. 6d. per dozen in the year 1953–54. Imported hen eggs were slightly cheaper than home-produced eggs in both years.

Mr. McAdden: Does my hon. Friend realise that the housewife will consider that to be a very satisfactory position? Can he perhaps give us the figure for the last year under control and the numbers of eggs passing through the packing

stations in the current year and in the previous year?

Dr. Hill: For the last year under control, the corresponding figure was 4s. 8d. The packing stations through-put in 195354 was 13·9 million boxes and in 1954–55, 16 million boxes.

Mr. Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman have figures available for the additional cost to the taxpayer arising from the difference in the prices?

Dr. Hill: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the Question down.

Potatoes (Retail Pricing)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the fact that the retail price of 7 lb. of potatoes is fixed for most brands at 1 s. 3½d., whether he will take steps to compel retailers to exhibit this price, since many of them charge their customers 2½d. per lb. whatever quantity they purchase.

Dr. Hill: Retailers are under a statutory obligation to display the maximum retail prices for quantities of 1 lb. and 7 lb. of potatoes. If the hon. Member knows of specific instances where this requirement is being ignored, I will inquire into them.

Danish Butter

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Food when he expects to obtain more plentiful supplies of Danish butter.

Dr. Hill: No great improvement can be expected before the middle of April.

Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that Danish butter is extremely popular in the north of England and that we look forward to larger supplies at an early date?

Dr. Hill: I do know that Danish butter is very popular in the north of England and some parts of the Midlands. The Danes have been finding profitable markets elsewhere, but we have reason to expect that the position will soon improve.

Wheat

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Food how much wheat was grown in the United Kingdom, and what proportion was used for flour milling, in the years 1938–39 and 1953–54, respectively.

Dr. Hill: The figures for the 1938–39 season are not separately available. The average production of the seasons 1936–37 to 1938–39 was 1,651,000 tons. Of this, 44 per cent. was used for flour milling. The corresponding figures for the 1953–54 season are 2,664,000 tons and 63 per cent.

Mr. Godber: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is very encouraging that there should be this large increase? Would he not also agree that it is very important from the point of view of balance of payments that we should maintain and, if possible. increase the acreage?

Dr. Hill: The figures are encouraging and are due in no small part to the co-operation of the millers in the last full year.

Bacon

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Food the level of bacon consumption now, as compared with that during the last six months of control.

Dr. Hill: Consumption during the period January to June, 1954, averaged about 10,600 tons a week. Since decontrol the average weekly sales have been 10,700 tons.

Mr. Fell: Is my hon. Friend not very satisfied with this result of Conservative administration? Can he give some indication of how the price of bacon has moved during the past two years?

Dr. Hill: The average price of bacon since decontrol has fallen by 6d. a lb.

Sugar

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Minister of Food the consumption of sugar in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and how this compares with consumption in the 12 months immediately before derationing.

Dr. Hill: About 2,580,000 tons (raw value) in the 12 months to the end of February, 1955, compared with 2,150,000 tons in the 12 months immediately before derationing.

Commander Scott-Miller: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is another example of where, when a commodity has been taken off control, it has not necessarily meant that there is less of it?

Subsidies

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Minister of Food the estimated value to the average family of the remaining subsidies on bread and milk, including welfare milk; and how this amount varies with families of different size.

Dr. Hill: The estimated value to all households is 3s. per week. As the reply to the second part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the inspired Questions to him cover only a selected range of foodstuffs?

Following is the information:

ESTIMATED VALUE OF SUBSIDIES (a) ON BREAD AND MILK (INCLUDING WELFARE MILK)


(per household per week)



s.
d.


All Households
3
0


Households comprising:


1 male and 1 female adult with: no others (aged 55 or over)
1
3


no others (both under 55)
1
5


1 child (under 15)
3
3


2 children (under 15)
5
2


3 children (under 15)
6
5


4 or more children (under 15) (average family size 6·5 persons)
10
4


Children and adolescents (average family size 5·1 persons)
4
8


Adolescents only (average family size 3·2 persons)
2
0


Other households with children (average family size 5·1 persons
4
10

(a) Estimates based on average unit subsidy for the financial year 1954–55 and average household consumption (plus school milk) in the third quarter of 1954, as shown by the National Food Survey.

Departmental Stocks

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what different foodstuffs are at present held in store by his Department, and in each case what is the amount so stored.

Dr. Hill: Commercial and residual stocks held by my Department include imported meat, bacon, raw sugar, butter and cheese, condensed milk and milk powder, frozen whole egg, Californian seedless raisins, concentrated orange juice, oilseeds and edible oils, and canned fruits. In general, my right hon. Friend is not prepared, on commercial grounds, to disclose the Department's holdings while it is still in business.

Mr. Wiley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do his best to see that these good foodstuffs get into consumption?

Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Dibdin House, Paddington

Mr. Parkin: asked the hon. Member for Finchley, as representing the Church Commissioners, the net percentage interest earned on the capital invested in Dibdin House, Paddington; and how this compares with other types of investment undertaken by the Commission.

Sir John Crowder: Approximately 2·4 per cent. This cannot be compared with other types of investment undertaken by the Commissioners, since they regard it as part of their contribution towards the housing of families in the lower income groups.

Investments

Mr. Parkin: asked the hon. Member for Finchley, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much liquid capital the Commission have at present awaiting investment; and what schemes are being considered for investing it.

Sir J. Crowder: None, Sir.

Mr. Parkin: Will the Commissioners continue to bear in mind their obligation to house the lower income groups in view of the fact that they were very proud, in the first place, of their achievement in erecting Dibdin House? They seem to have lost that initiative and enthusiasm since the war.

Sir J. Crowder: Our enthusiasm is undimmed in doing what we can both to produce a fair income for the clergy and as regards the housing position of all our tenants.

Property, Paddington (Lease)

Mr. Parkin: asked the hon. Member for Finchley, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many times the lease of 39, Shirland Road, Paddington, has changed hands since the war; and what steps the Commissioners have

taken to ensure that their interests are protected.

Sir J. Crowder: The lease of this property has not changed hands since the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING ESTATE, LIVERPOOL (DOMESTIC EQUIPMENT)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Supply why he has informed the tenants of his Department's estate in Liverpool, 11, that cooking equipment and washboilers are to be withdrawn from the houses if they are not purchased by the residents by a certain date; and whether, in view of the new restrictions on hire-purchase of such equipment, he will now reverse this decision and enable tenants of the estate to continue to use this equipment on the same basis as they have been able to hitherto.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Washboilers, electric kettles and similar equipment were provided in Ministry of Supply houses built during the war because at that time the tenants could not easily have bought them for themselves. This kind of equipment is not provided in the newer houses, and I do not feel justified in continuing to spend public money on maintaining or, where necessary, replacing it in the older houses. No cooking equipment is being offered for sale or withdrawn on the Ministry's estate in Liverpool, 11. Tenants have been given the opportunity of buying the other articles at very low prices which can be paid by instalments.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why he has chosen this moment of time, nearly 10 years after the end of the war, to institute this change as regards the tenants of this estate who have been enjoying the use of this equipment?

Mr. Lloyd: Simply for administrative reasons. The problem of keeping them in repair and of replacement is becoming quite a considerable one. These tenants have not had these items taken into account in their rents up to now, and they are being offered them at very low prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Accommodation, Macclesfield and Congleton

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the shortage of accommodation in the hospitals in Macclesfield and Congleton; and if he will take steps to have more adequate accommodation provided.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): My right hon. Friend is informed that the difficulties experienced in this area are due to shortage of nursing staff rather than to lack of accommodation, and that the hospital management committee is making every effort to recruit additional staff and bring closed beds into use.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say what efforts are being made, because at the moment many patients from Macclesfield and Congleton have to go to hospitals at Stockport and Manchester, and this bears very hard on families who have to pay travelling expenses to visit them? Will my hon. Friend look into the position and tell us what is being done?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Every effort is being made to recruit additional staff, but at present, of the 514 beds, 69 are not available because of nursing shortage. it is hoped to open 12 of these in April as a result of recruitment. Every effort is being made to try to step up recruitment in this area.

New Hospital, Slough

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Health if he will now state when the proposed new hospital for the district of Slough will be built; and how many beds it will contain.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend cannot yet add to what he said about this in the statement he made on 9th February.

Mr. Brockway: As we have to cater not merely for present needs but for the large populations coming to the new L.C.C. estates at Slough, will the hon. Lady urge her right hon. Friend to speed up the provision of this hospital? Can she confirm that it is now third in the list in the regional area?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir, I cannot. The priorities within any region are decided by the regional hospital board. There are several schemes of high priority in the area, of which this hospital is one, but it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to anticipate the decisions of the regional hospital board. It is for the board to decide the one, two and three of their priorities. Until it does so, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure he requires.

Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend keep particularly in mind the fact that a decision cannot be made on hospital needs and their satisfaction in other areas until a decision is made in this case?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I quite accept the desire of all hon. Members to see priorities applied to the needs of their own constituencies, but the regional hospital board is charged with the responsibility for laying down the one, two and three of its priorities. It is only fairly recently that my right hon. Friend announced this increased capital allocation, and it is only fair to give the regional boards an opportunity to meet and make their decisions as to their programmes. It would be wrong for us to anticipate those decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Doctors' Lists

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health the average number of patients on doctors' lists in Wales at the latest convenient date; how this figure compares with the figure for England; and how it compares with the average figure for Wales in 1951.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The average number at 1st July, 1954, the latest date for which figures are available, was in Wales 2,077, in England 2,219. At 1st July, 1951, the numbers were Wales 2,348, England 2,391.

Dental Benefits (Friendly Society Members)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that members of friendly societies, some of whom have contributed for nearly 50 years, are at a disadvantage under the


Health Service in regard to dental benefits, in that whereas previously they paid in for, and received, the full cost of new dentures, they now receive only half the cost; and if he will take steps to enable members of friendly societies to receive new dentures free of charge.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The position of these members has been much improved by the provision of more valuable insurance benefits and comprehensive Health Services. It would not be practicable to discriminate in their favour in respect of the comparatively few charges to patients, nor has my right hon. Friend any powers which would allow him to do so.

Captain Pilkington: While appreciating the improvements which have been made, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she is aware that there is a very real sense of grievance here? Will she look into the matter again if I give her further details?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is not a question of looking into it again. The powers of my right hon. Friend are limited. He cannot make a discriminatory preference in the case of certain members who in a very few societies were able to obtain this benefit when they had large surpluses accrue.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether he will extend legal aid to respondents in cases before the House of Lords where such respondents have been legally aided and successful in lower courts.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 6th December last.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the absence of these facilities is affecting very prejudicially a constituent of mine who has, with skilled legal advice, beaten the Crown and the Brady slum racket on two previous occasions in the Court of Appeal? Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman going to do something to ensure that this constituent is not denied justice when the case comes before the highest tribunal?

The Solicitor-General: As it may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituent is still going on with litigation, I should not say much about that case; but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House know, the Crown have started proceedings to determine the question, which might make it unnecessary for his contituent to go there at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, when he receives the National Insurance Advisory Committee's Report on widows' pensions, he will give special attention to fatal accident widows who are now receiving only 20s. per week, and have had no increase since 1946.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will certainly keep this point in mind.

Mr. McKay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past equality has been recognised between widows receiving industrial injuries pensions and widows receiving Army pensions? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when one widow is 40 she gets 52s. 6d. per week and the other gets 20s.? Is not this a serious position which requires consideration?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has promised to keep the point in mind. This question must be considered in relation to the whole range of industrial injuries benefits.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that widows receiving Army pensions receive higher pensions and qualify at lower ages than widows under the National Industrial Injuries Act; and if he will consider raising industrial injury widows' allowances and amending the age qualifications, so as to remove this anomaly.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir: the present rates were fixed as recently as last December and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to reconsider them now.

Mr. McKay: Does not the Minister consider that it is rather peculiar that a


woman who becomes a widow as a result of her husband suffering industrial injuries gets less in children's allowances, and no educational allowance or rent allowance? Is there not a tremendous margin between one and the other? Does not the matter merit serious attention?

Mr. Marples: Any disparity there may be arose out of the original Act of 1946. The hon. Gentleman is raising the important principle of complete parity between industrial injuries and war pensions. I do not think that either side of the House has accepted that. It is very difficult to answer points of principle such as this by means of Question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVAL AIR STATION, SINGAPORE

Mr. Peyton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement as to the future of the Royal Naval Air Station at Singapore.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): The whole question of support for the Fleet Air Arm in the Far East is being examined. My right hon. Friend would prefer not to make any statement until this examination is completed.

Mr. Peyton: While appreciating that answer and the difficulties of the problem, may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to make it clear to his right hon. Friend and to the Board of Admiralty that there is a great deal of discontent at this air station and that it is of urgent importance, so far as the personnel are concerned, that some statement should be made at an early date about the intentions of his Department?

Commander Noble: My right hon. Friend will, of course, make a statement as soon as he can. If my hon. Friend has any information about this station which he would care to send to me, I should be very grateful to receive it.

DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS (STATEMENT)

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement in answer to Question No. 9.
The House will be aware that the United Nations General Assembly laid down that the discussions of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, at Lancaster House, should be conducted in private. In spite of this, Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet delegate to the Sub-Committee, gave an interview to the Tass correspondent in London on 24th March, in which he sought not only to publicise Soviet views but also to misrepresent the position of the Western Powers.
Therefore, Her Majesty's Government, who have strictly observed the secrecy rule, have no option but to correct Mr. Gromyko's account. Similar statements have been made by our allies, the first of these on Friday night by the French representative, M. Jules Moch.
United Kingdom policy at the disarmament talks is based on the Anglo-French Plan of 11th June, 1954. This plan provides for:

(1) total abolition of all nuclear weapons.
(2) conversion of nuclear stocks for peaceful purposes only.
(3) a ban on production of nuclear weapons.
(4) drastic reductions in conventional armaments, armed forces, and military budgets.
(5) strict international control.

In the current talks, the United Kingdom Delegation has further proposed that all States should reduce their forces to levels which would make it impossible for them to be a threat to peace. In particular, there should be drastic reductions in the forces of the five major Powers.
The United Kingdom Delegation, in concert with the other Western Delegations, has proposed that the maximum numbers for the forces of the United States, the U.S.S.R. and China, should be between 1 million and 1½ million each; for Britain and France 650,000 each. Such reductions would establish a fair balance of forces between the East and the West. Moreover, they would break up the mass armies of the world.
The Soviet Government, however, have rejected this proposal. Instead, they have merely revived their old demand for a one-third cut all round, which has been resisted by all Western countries since 1948. When asked what the effect of the one-third cut would be upon the forces of the Soviet Union, the Soviet delegate refused to reply. He would only say that this information would be given by the Soviet Union after the Disarmament Treaty had been signed.
The first three weeks of the Sub-Committee's session were chiefly spent discussing a Soviet proposal that stocks of nuclear weapons should be destroyed without providing for a ban on their production. This proposal marked a significant retreat from the position taken by Mr. Vyshinsky in the United Nations last autumn.
The United Kingdom and other Western delegations said that they could accept the Soviet proposal provided it formed part of a complete disarmament programme—which included, as does the Anglo-French Plan, effective international control and a ban on production of nuclear weapons. The Soviet delegate, however, rejected this offer and insisted that the destruction of stocks must be carried out before any other aspects of disarmament were even examined, let alone carried out.
The Sub-Committee is now, however, engaged in discussing the Anglo-French Plan and a Soviet proposal based largely on the resolution which they put forward in the General Assembly last autumn. The Western Delegations are striving, and will continue to strive, to narrow points of difference and to clarify obscurities which still exist.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to ask two questions. First, while we all regret that the first proposal of the Soviet Government should have held out no hope of progress or agreement, may we take it from the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Soviet have now made new proposals on which there is some hope that useful discussions may lead to agreement?
Secondly, if, in fact, agreement is not reached on important points within the measureable future, will the Government consider proposing to the other Western

members of the Sub-Committee that we should now try to carry out the Assembly mandate, to prepare a practical scheme for the reduction of arms control in the form of a draft treaty, and invite the Soviet Government to put forward alternative plans on points over which they still feel a difference? Is it not time that we got past the general statement of objectives and down to the practical methods of how the thing is to be done?

Mr. Nutting: In reply to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, that is precisely what we are doing in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, but the Russians, unfortunately, will not do the same. I still have hopes that we may be able to narrow the points of difference. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we have made constructive proposals.
In answer to the first question by the right hon. Gentleman, I think that the House has appreciated, from the statement I have made, that the Soviet Union have revised their old proposal from the United Nations last autumn and brought it up to date. We have been able to narrow one or two points of disagreement and we hope to go on doing that; and if we can get, at any rate, that much, our work will not have been in vain. I have said before, and I said it to the Soviet delegate in the Sub-Committee, that we must work in good faith with one another, and in private, as was laid down by the Disarmament Commission.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything was done about Mr. Gromyko's apparent disregard of the common assurance in giving an interview to the Tass Agency? Was he reproached? Further, are we to assume that the work of the Sub-Committee will continue indefinitely until there is a reasonable hope of agreement being reached?

Mr. Nutting: We shall continue our work in the Sub-Committee so long as there is any hope whatsoever of reaching agreement. Mr. Gromyko had, unfortunately, left the country before the statement which he gave to the Tass correspondent—but to no other journalist—was released.

Mr. Beswick: While agreeing with the Minister about the necessity of continuing


the conference in good faith and confidence, in view of the fact that the abbreviated and condensed reports given hitherto, on both sides, have not given a complete, or completely fair, picture of the proceedings, can the Minister give an assurance that at the end of the conference he will again agree to publish the verbatim records, as was done on the previous occasion?

Mr. Nutting: The publication of the records of the conference is not a matter which can be decided by Her Majesty's Government alone, but is, of course, for the Sub-Committee to decide. If the verbatim records are published the hon. Gentleman, the whole House and the world will be able to read, and, I hope, appreciate, that what I have said today is a fair account of the proceedings to date.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Minister quoted Mr. Jules Moch, may I ask whether he is aware that the French Socialists have decided against the manufacture of thermo-nuclear weapons in France on the ground that it would be dangerous to France? That being so, would not it be a good thing if Her Majesty's Government did the same sort of thing in the interests of the people of this country?

Mr. Nutting: I am aware that I have enjoyed the most close and friendly cooperation throughout the discussions with my French Socialist colleague.

Mr. Hughes: Read his book.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Alfred Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he has any statement to make about the dispute which has caused a stoppage in the newspaper industry.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): This dispute arose out of a claim for increased wages by the maintenance engineers and electricians employed by members of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association. The Association made an offer to the trade unions concerned, namely, the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Electrical Trades Union, similar in amount to

an offer made to the printing trade unions. This offer was rejected and, in furtherance of their claim, the union chapels concerned gave two weeks' notice of withdrawal of labour to expire on the morning of Friday, 25th March. Further discussions took place between the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the unions on Monday, 21st March, the notices having been lifted, but no progress was made and the notices were reimposed to take effect on the original date.
My Department was kept informed of the position and as soon as the notices were reimposed by the chapels, my officers arranged a joint meeting on Friday, 25th March, between the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the unions. At this meeting, the Association declined to increase their offer but said that it was willing for the claim to be referred to arbitration and undertook to abide by the result. The unions, however, were not prepared to go to arbitration on their claim.
I am keeping in close touch with the situation. The services of my Department continue to be available to the parties at any time, and my Department will not hesitate to call the parties together again if such a course appears helpful.

Mr. Robens: First, I should like to express the pleasure of the whole House at the return of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hope that his enforced rest has fully restored him to health and strength.
While it affords, perhaps, a little relief for many people not to have to read the national Press for a day or two, the non-publication of the national Press over a continued period would be a very grave matter indeed. May I, therefore, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will continue to keep the House fully informed about the progress he is making in the negotiations?

Sir W. Monckton: May I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind reference to me. I will, of course, keep the House informed of a matter which closely concerns the public.

Mr. Braine: Could my right hon. and learned Friend clear up two points? First, is this strike official or unofficial, and, secondly, has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been drawn


to a statement made by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association that the average earnings of the strikers are £15 2s. a week, that they are asking for at least £2 18s. 6d. extra, and that it was on that basis that the newspaper proprietors were prepared to submit the whole matter to arbitration and to accept the verdict?

Sir W. Monckton: As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, I think that the figures which he has quoted are accurate, but the exact figures I cannot carry in my mind. As to the rest of the matter, it is a little difficult to say how far this is an official strike. Technically, at any rate, it is not official at the moment, and I am not going to say anything, I hope, to make it more so.

Mr. Gower: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any information about a voluntary agreement which obtains in Sweden where, apparently, the regular publication of news is regarded as of such transcendental importance that the unions and the newspapers have arrived at an agreement which is calculated to lessen the danger of strikes in the industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not know the scheme which works in Sweden. I am sure that all the parties concerned will have a good look at it when this is over, but I am afraid that I have to get this dispute over without that help.

Mr. Collins: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to give a definite reply to the question addressed to him about earnings, can he make it clear whether, in these negotiations, earnings or basic rates are being dealt with?

Sir W. Monckton: The offers have been concerned with basic rates, but, of course, in all inquiries of this sort those who have to deal with them look not only at basic rates but at earnings as well.

EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR (MONUMENT)

3.42 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I beg to move,
That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider an humble Address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, 0.M., with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and to the Commonwealth and Empire in Parliament, and in great Offices of State.
There is, I believe, general agreement that the House made a wise rule when it prohibited the introduction of a Motion of this character for ten years after the death of the statesman concerned. This rule is comparatively new, and has been used only once, in 1938, in the case of that honoured figure Lord Oxford and Asquith.
Ten years is long enough to allow partisan passions, whether of hatred or of enthusiasm, to cool, and not too long to quench the testimony of contemporary witnesses. We combine by this method the memories and feelings of men who knew David Lloyd George long and well with that sense of sober proportion and perspective which ever changing time alone can give and keep on giving.
I had originally drafted this Motion to include the phrase,
 within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster,
but because of the views which were expressed to me by the Leaders of the Labour and Liberal Parties—and, may I say, I much regret the absence and the cause of the absence of the Leader of the Liberal Party—I shall not ask the House to prejudge this matter. Some may prefer Parliament Square to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. At any rate, it is better to leave the question open for much longer consideration than would be possible this afternoon.
I will not, however, conceal my personal opinion. David Lloyd George was a House of Commons man. He sat here for one constituency for fifty-five years. He gave sparkle to our debates. He guided the House through some of its


most critical years, and without the fame and authority of the Mother of Parliaments he could never have rendered his services to the nation.
The Committee which this Motion will set up will no doubt wish those who were nearest him to express their opinion as to where he would have chosen his monument to be. He might have liked it to be as near this Chamber as possible.
The duty that falls to me this afternoon strikes a curious coincidence. It is exactly ten years ago to the day, 28th March, since I stood at this Box, in my present office, and, at the first opportunity after Lloyd George's death, addressed the House on his career. The discussion that followed is well worth re-reading. There will be seen the unanimity and the fervour of the testimony given to his work from all parts of the House.
I was perplexed, I admit, when I was thinking of how to commend this Motion to you, Mr. Speaker, to find, on looking back, that I had already said much that I now wish to say. My friendship for this remarkable man covered more than forty years of House of Commons life, including long periods during which I served with and under him as his Cabinet colleague. Whether in or out of office, our intimate and agreeable companionship was never darkened, so far as I can recall, by any serious spell of even political hostility.
As a first-hand witness, as I may claim to be, I wish to reaffirm the tribute I paid to his memory on his death. I feel that what was said then has only grown and strengthened and mellowed in the intervening decade. There were two great spheres of his activity and achievements. He launched the Liberal and Radical forces of this country effectively into the broad stream of social betterment and social security along which all modern parties now steer.
His warm heart was stirred by the many perils which beset the cottage homes, the health of the bread winner, the fate of his widow, the nourishment and upbringing of his children, the meagre and haphazard provision of medical treatment and sanatoria, and the lack of any organised accessible medical service from which the mass of the wage earners and the poor in those days suffered so severely. All this excited his wrath. Pity and compassion lent their powerful wings.
He knew the terror with which old age threatened the toiler—that after a life of exertion he could be no more than a burden at the fireside and in the family of a struggling son.
When I first became Lloyd George's friend and active associate, more than fifty years ago, this deep love of the people, the profound knowledge of their lives and of the undue and needless pressures under which they lived, impressed themselves indelibly upon my mind. Most people are unconscious today of how much of their lives have been shaped by the laws for which Lloyd George was responsible. Health insurance, and old-age pensions, were the first large-scale State-conscious efforts to fasten a lid over the abyss without pulling down the structures of civilised society.
Now we move forward confidently into larger and more far-reaching applications of these ideas. I was his lieutenant in those bygone days, and shared, in a minor way, in the work. He was indeed a champion of the weak and the poor and I am sure that as time passes his name will not only live but shine on account of the grand, laborious, constructive work he did for the social and domestic life of our country.
But the second phase of his life's work, upon which his fame will rest with equal and even greater firmness, is his guidance of the nation in the First World War. Here I will venture to quote directly what I said ten years ago:
 Although unacquainted with the military arts, although by public repute a pugnacious pacifist, when the life of our country was in peril he rallied to the war effort and cast aside all other thoughts or aims. He was the first to discern the fearful shortages of ammunition and artillery and all the other appliances of war which would so soon affect, and in the case of Imperial Russia mortally affect, the warring nations on both sides. He saw it before anyone.
He presented the facts to the Cabinet even before he went to the Ministry of Munitions.
 Here he hurled himself into the mobilisation of British industry. In 1915, he was building great war factories that could not come into operation for two years. There was the usual talk about the war being over in a few months, but he did not hesitate to plan on a vast scale for two years ahead.
It was my fortune to inherit the enormous overflowing output of those factories. When he became the head of the


Government in the political convulsions of 1916,
 He imparted immediately a new surge of strength, of impulse, far stronger than anything that had been known up to that time, and extending over the whole field of war-time Government…All this was illustrated by the successful development of the war; by the adoption of the convoy system, which he enforced upon the Admiralty and by which the U-boats were defeated; by the unified command on the Western Front which gave Marshal Foch the power to lead us all to victory…
In these and in many other matters which form a part of the story of those sombre and tremendous years we can observe and measure the depth we owe him.
 As a man of action, resource and creative energy he stood, when at his zenith, without a rival."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1379–80.]
There is one further episode which I will mention. It fell to the lot of most of us who are here today to have to face a second world war. Lloyd George had been long out of office. Nearly a generation had passed since he ceased to be Prime Minister, but upon 3rd September, in the solemn debate which marked our entry into the new struggle, he spoke words which gave confidence to many and comfort to all. I will read them to the House:
 I have been through this before, and there is only one word I want to say about that. We had very bad moments, moments when brave men were rather quailing and doubting, but the nation was firm right through, from beginning to end. One thing that struck me then was that it was in moments of disaster, and in some of the worst disasters with which we were confronted in the war, that I found the greatest union among all classes, the greatest disappearance of discontent and disaffection, and of the grabbing for right and privileges. The nation closed its ranks then. By that means we went through right to the end, and after 4½ years, terrible years, we won a victory for right. We will do it again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd September, 1939; Vol. 351, c. 299–300.]
That is what he said of this occasion, and I am glad to read it to the House again.
In supporting the Motion which is on the Order Paper the House will, I believe, be acting in harmony with its traditions, and it will also strengthen the national faith in the wisdom and propriety of its judgment and the guidance which it gives. When the history of Britain for the first quarter of the twentieth century is written

it will be seen how great a part of our fortunes in peace and in war was shaped by this one man.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: On behalf of my colleagues upon this side of the House I desire to support the Motion which has been moved so eloquently by the Prime Minister. I should like to thank him for widening the terms of the Motion to give us a variety of choice. I was a member of a committee which considered certain rearrangements in Parliament Square, and we had contemplated the possibility that upon one side of the Square, alongside the statue of Field Marshal Smuts and others, there might be a statue of David Lloyd George, but that is eminently a matter for consideration. He was a very, very great Parliamentarian, and also a very, very great statesman upon the world stage.
Ten years ago I listened to the Prime Minister—being then one of his supporters —moving the Motion upon the death of David Lloyd George. My colleague, Arthur Greenwood, then spoke for the Labour Party. It is a wise dispensation that ten years should elapse in order that the dust of controversy may settle and one may view a statesman in perspective. Lloyd George had a very long life. It is 33 years since he left office—one might almost say that it is almost 40 years since he was one of the most controversial figures upon the political scene—and a new generation has since grown up. Now, perhaps, we can look at him in perspective as one of the most illustrous in the long line of Prime Ministers.
He was the first man to come from a cottage to 10, Downing Street. He symbolised in himself one of the peaceful revolutions of our time; the entry into the seats of power of the underprivileged. He was the architect of his own fortunes. I shall not speak today at any length of those early struggles, but we all recall, as the Prime Minister has recalled, that he was one of the chief initiators of the great schemes of social security that have now eventuated in the Welfare State. We of the older generation can look back to the fierce controversy of that time, yet I think that the younger generation, of whatever political opinions, now view what he then initiated as the essential basis of our modern society. We owe a


great tribute to the courage and vision of the initiator of those schemes.
Lloyd George was a very great Welshman. I regret very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is striken down with illness and unable to pay the tribute which we know he would wish to do. I hope that we shall have some words from another Welshman, the Father of the House.
The Prime Minister was a colleague in peace and war of David Lloyd George, and he has rightly stressed the great service that he did not only to this country but to the cause of democracy all over the world. He brought that drive that was so necessary in the urgencies of war. My personal contacts with him were only during the last 19 years of his long life. I never heard him on the platform where he could sway immense audiences with his unrivalled eloquence, but I recall him in this House as a wonderful debater. I recall those brilliant and pungent phrases of his, his beautiful voice and his expressive gestures.
I recall how, right to the end of his life, he was always a pioneer of new causes. Above all, I would recall his courage, which led him from very small beginnings, amid great difficulties, to a position of eminence in the State; and, secondly, his power of interpreting the desires of the common people. I think that he never forgot his origins; he never forgot the humble folk from whom he was drawn, and throughout his long life always he kept close to the beating heart of the people.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: In the absence through illness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), I should like to support this Motion on behalf of the Liberal Party. We are very proud that Lloyd George lived and died a Liberal. We are very proud of the things which, as a Liberal, he was able to do for his country. We are proud of his leadership, and we are proud of his achievements.
He was, as we have been told, a great wartime Prime Minister. He was the founder of the social services, and he was the father of a great many ideas in political economy which have passed into

common practice. All these things are a living memorial to him today. We have also been told that his strength and his attraction lay in the sympathy which he felt for the hopes and the fears of the ordinary people.
I should like to think that perhaps he would have had some sympathy for the position in which I find myself today. because I am a very ordinary person, and I, of course, have no personal knowledge of Lloyd George. But his name and his fame have come down to my generation. We know the inspiration that he was and the inspiration that he remains. I am a little sorry that his daughter, as well as his son, is not in the House today. Apart from that slight regret, I have nothing but pleasure that the Liberal Party can be linked with all that has been said, both by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition, about a great man.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I am very happy at being allowed to say a few words in support of this Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman who was the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs were alive today, I would say to him in Welsh, Ti wyddost beth ddywed fy nghalon— Thou knoweth what my heart says.
I am very proud indeed, as a fellow Welshman, younger than Mr. Lloyd George, to join in expressing my gratitude at the great march which he initiated for social progress. I am very proud to stand here today to say how much I admire this great Welshman. He had extraordinary qualities: genius, if genius does walk the ways of men. Lloyd George was a political genius.
He started at the very bottom of the ladder, living in a small village in a remote part of Wales, at a time when there were many injustices of which the people complained. He always lent a ready ear to the grievances of the poor, the orphans and the widows for whom no provision had been made—no thought of provision had been made—by any previous school of politics.
Mr. Lloyd George came to this House young—I think he came here about 55 years ago. I was a very small boy, and his name was then, as it is today, well-known throughout every corner of every parish in Wales. I was a Liberal then.
Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to the House for saying this. Lloyd George, too, was a radical Liberal, and he had the most amazing gift of speech. I think that of all the gifts, the " giftie gie us " in Lloyd George's case was the gift of speech not only to enable people to understand but to agree with him when the presumption was entirely against him. I remember that as a young boy I came to admire very much the personality, the gifts, the marvellous skill, the instincts which this man possessed to a superlative degree.
I support the provision of an appropriate memorial to the late David Lloyd George. He was a gifted orator, but he had the happy advantage of being so close to his fellow countrymen in Wales, whose language he spoke with so much eloquence, and whose ancient wisdom so much helped him in assessing the feelings and sentiments of other nations. He was far better as a politician because he was a good Welshman. In a special way it marked his career right through. He had an ear for the invisible; he understood the instincts, and what the heart sayeth, very often before the tongue had spoken.
The present Prime Minister joined the Liberal Administration—I cannot remember the date, but when he was quite young —and I remember hearing very much of him in those days. But he suffered from one disadvantage—he was not a Welshman. I do not know how soon it had been arranged, but very soon Lloyd George and he had acquired a perfect understanding. That was evident to everyone, particularly to a Welshman who looked on. I think that that will live long as a record of a great political partnership. No two men had been given so much authority over such a long and difficult period in the history of the nation and the British Commonwealth.
Lloyd George did not start his political career as an imperialist, but I am convinced that he sensed the importance of widening the chain of relationship which had not been fully linked in the days

when he appeared in politics. Lloyd George and the present Prime Minister formed the almost ideal partnership for that and similar operations. The trend of religious, educational and social developments was greatly influenced by the work done in the first half of the century by their partnership. The House today does honour to itself in finding permanent standing room for a memorial to the former village boy from Wales whose name and fame are rightly known throughout the world.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I should like to follow a remark made by the Prime Minister. He raised the question whether the memorial to Lloyd George should be in this building or elsewhere. Personally, I hope that the monument will be put up in this building, as he was a great House of Commons man, but it raises the question not only of future statues but of those we already have in this building.
If we look around the Palace of Westminster we find a rather odd lot of statues. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] If we look in the Lobby, we find that we have Asquith, who was a worthy Prime Minister, but we also have there a number of other people, such as Harcourt, whom nobody now would remember. [HON. MEMBERS: " 0h."] On the other hand, people like Balfour—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think what the hon. Member is saying is strictly germane to the Motion before the House. Perhaps it will receive consideration at another time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House will. Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider an humble Address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, 0.M., with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by this House of the eminent services rendered by him to the Country and to the Commonwealth and Empire in Parliament, and in great Offices of State.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress. 24th March].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1. —(WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after " a " to insert " normal ".
With your permission, Sir Charles, perhaps the almost similar Amendment in the same line standing in my name might be taken together.
I am sorry that we have to turn so quickly from a Motion which we were all able and very glad to support unanimously, concerning the father of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary, to a matter concerning the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, on which perhaps we might be a little less unanimous. I can comfort him by saying that I propose to move my Amendment very briefly and shall not detain the Committee very long. This is not one of the important Amendments. There are more important ones to follow.
The Amendment raises an issue to which the spokesman of the Government should apply his mind. He should tell us what he has in mind in bringing forward the Bill, which is inevitably a censorship Measure. Are we concerned with the normal child or with the abnormal child? If we were considering, in a Measure which went rather wider than the Bill, works which might be held to be objectionable to some people but which were nevertheless of considerable literary merit, it would be intolerable that we should take up the position that the 90 per cent. normal people or children should be prevented from reading something which might be of value and benefit because of the possible deleterious effect which such a work might have on the minority with abnormal tendencies.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may tell us that it is impossible for any such work to be proceeded against under the Bill. He has said that on a number of occasions, and I accept that he has said

it with the greatest sincerity. Some of us are worried that it may be possible, even though not strictly within the intended scope of the Bill, for a case to arise in which, in spite of all the good intentions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Government spokesmen, a work of real merit will be proceeded against in a way entirely contrary to the present intentions of the Government. Such a position has arisen before under statutes of a roughly similar kind.
We are here concerned with a great censorship issue. Is one to prevent something which might be of value to the majority being read by everybody because of its possible harmful effect upon a minority? A later Amendment will provide for the rebuttal of a charge on the ground that a particular work is of literary or other merit. If that Amendment could be accepted or looked upon sympathetically, it would make the present Amendment a good deal less necessary. If it is the view of the Minister that no work of literary or other other merit could possibly be brought within the purview of the Bill, he would lose very little, and perhaps nothing at all, of his objective in this Bill by accepting an Amendment which allows literary or other merit as a ground for rebuttal of such a charge.
In dealing with a minority of people who may be abnormal, and who read horror comics and commit undesirable acts after reading them, it is extremely difficult to be sure, or even to be reasonably sure, what effect the horror comics have had upon their course of action. It is important, in this field, not to confuse cause and effect—not to say that because something has happened after someone has read horror comics, then it has happened because he has read horror comics. This is a field in which there is necessarily very grave doubt about the effect of reading and other experiences upon the human mind.
As to some extent there has already been anticipation of Amendments, I hope that the Attorney-General will first give us an assurance that he will look reasonably sympathetically at the later Amendment which provides for rebuttal on grounds of literary or other merit. If he cannot do that, perhaps he will give us some idea of what is in his mind in bringing this proposal forward—whether it is corruption of the normal


or of the abnormal who might already be corrupted and whose position is made worse, or which class of children he has in mind in dealing with this matter.

Dr. Horace King: This Amendment seems to me to be the most plausible and most dangerous of all which we have so far debated, and I sincerely hope not only that the Minister will resist it, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), after he has heard the debate, will withdraw it.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend suggested that there is doubt about the influence of crime comics on children. I refer him to the work of Dr. Wertham, the eminent American psychiatrist, whose study of the crime comic was brought about as a result of his own clinical observations in dealing with children in America who had gone astray.
I am willing to admit that there may be some children in the world—indeed, there are some children in this country—who could not be hurt by horror comics. In America, where this battle has been fought, as it has been fought in this country, the horror comic industry engaged professional psychiatrists to defend their industry, and their defence was just the defence of this Amendment—that the crime comic would not hurt anyone who was normal; that if a comic incited someone to acts of sadistic cruelty, he must have been that way inclined before; that the child who sits glued to a sensational comic, reading it over and over again, as some children do, is neurotic anyway, so why worry about him?
I discussed this question a fortnight ago in New York with Dr. Wertham, whose major work on crime comics has often been referred to in the debates on the Bill. He has said:
 Obviously, one cannot make any hard and fast rule according to which children can be divided into stable or unstable.
Or, as the Amendment would say, normal or abnormal.
 Every normal child is immature growing, and to that extent unstable and vulnerable. And even if he does nothing wrong, temptation exposes him to emotional conflict, and that, coupled with other factors, may do him subtle harm, immediately or later on.
I ask the Committee, how can we define a normal child? Is it only the

psychopath who is hurt by the portrayal of filth and horror? Are not children who are very sensitive also normal children? Are not children who are richly endowed with emotions normal? Are not children with vivid imaginations normal? Or do we mean by the " normal " child just the impassive, phlegmatic, tough child whe would not be hurt by a crime comic? Are we sure that even the average child is not hurt because he does not show it and because he does not go out and do violent deeds?
I often wonder who the average child is. In my experience of hundreds of thousands of British children, I have never met the average, normal child. Every child is an individual. But I am certain that if the Amendment were accepted the purveyors of crime comics would make great play in the courts of English law over this unhurtable, incorruptible, mythical figure.
If we believe in education, we believe that there is some positive value in surrounding all children, even so-called normal children, with good and beautiful things, all the positive influences of beauty and tenderness, Arnold's " sweetness and light," if hon. Members like, good music and good pictures, good words, well-written or well-spoken. If we believe that, then surely by the same token it is unhealthy, it is a negation of education, it is a negation of what the State is spending vast sums of money in providing for the well-being of our children, to submit even the normal child to morbid, neurotic, sadistic, fascist and perverted imagery.
Let us remember what we are talking about—not about Hogarth's " Rake's Progress," which was mentioned last week and which is a highly moral work; not about Goya's paintings, in which he poured out his passionate hatred of war.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On what grounds is my hon. Friend so sure that those two works which he has mentioned would not come within the purview of the Bill?

Dr. King: I refer my hon. Friend to the second part of the Clause which we are discussing.
Let me give an example from the comic which gives the story of the blind boy with a teddy bear. The father rips out the teddy bear's eyes to equate it with the boy, who cannot see. Or from the


American comic, passed by the Comic Purification Syndicate of America, which gives a torture scene with the caption, " His arms will be wrenched from their sockets." Or one which tells of the raping of a 16-year-old girl by a sheriff, who tricks an innocent youth into confession, after which the youth is lynched and beaten to death, the caption reading, " Crunching, crushed bone." This last was published by a society calling itself Tiny Tots Incorporated. That is the kind of thing against which the Home Secretary is legislating.
But I will take the matter from another and much more serious point of view. If we have in our midst neurotic children, is it our business to feed the neurosis or to check it? If we have in our community potential sadists, is it our job to stimulate and encourage their cruel fantasies? If we have potential killers, is it our duty to provide them with pictorial illustrations of the best and nastiest ways of killing? If little Lord Fauntleroy likes pulling the wings off flies, must we provide him with a handbook of instructions as to the easiest or most painful way of doing the job?
No wonder that Walter Lippman has written:
 The comic books are purveying crime and lust to an intolerable degree. There can be no real doubt that public exhibitions of sadism tend to excite sadistic desires and to teach the audience how to gratify sadistic desires.
I urge the Committee not to divide children into sheep and goats, and not to accept this Amendment, which would allow as a defence to a crime comic purveyor, " I admit Johnny stuck pins in the eyes of an animal after reading pictures which taught him how to do it. But Johnny always was perverted anyhow, and I can produce dozens of children before the court—good, clean, healthy children—who have looked at these pictures without following up their reading by such wicked acts as Johnny's. I ask the court to punish wicked Johnny and to let my clean and pure-minded client continue his work of entertaining British youth with pictures which hurt only those children who were originally perverted or sinful in any case."
I urge the Minister to reject all specious pleas for an Amendment which would take all the teeth out of the Bill and make it almost useless.

4.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): It may be convenient if I take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) that the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment.
The argument of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was based on a misapprehension. The test laid down by the Bill is not to reject the abnormal child. The words " children or young persons " in this context mean the general run of children and young persons. If we were to include the word " normal " in the two places in which the hon. Member proposes, it would mean that a court would have to take a particular class, the class of normal children or young persons. I am not quite sure how the court would interpret that, but the probable way would be to say, " We have to reject, on the one hand, intelligent children and, on the other hand, dull children."
I think it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) who, on Second Reading, made the very sound point that it was the dull children who were peculiarly susceptible to the effect of these publications. The same point was made by other hon. Members. The effect of the Amendment would be to tell the court that it ought to disregard the dull child when considering this matter. I think all hon. Members would agree that the dull child ought not to be disregarded. It is right that the court, in considering the effects of these publications on children and young persons generally, should bear in mind their effects on all such children, including dull children.
The hon. Member for Stechford said that it was possible that the wording of the Clause might be construed in a different way at some remote period. I do not think he could have heard my right hon. and gallant Friend indicate, when the Bill was last considered by the Committee, that he would regard sympathetically one or two Amendments which would put a time limit on the effect of the Bill. I (do not think the hon. Member need worry on that score. I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ede:: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given the


intimation he has about the intentions of the Government. I think that this word " normal " would be completely meaningless in the courts. I do not know what the normal child is. As a schoolmaster, I had to deal with very large groups of children in the days when I taught and I am quite certain that I never met a normal child. I am sure that most people will say that they would not be normal after they had passed through my hands. I am also sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) was not a normal child, at least in the eyes of his parents. I had many conversations with his distinguished father, when he was a Member of this House, about the precocious and brilliant infant. I do not think that my hon. Friend's father would be supporting him in the line he has pursued on this Bill.
What can possibly be meant by a normal child? It is not merely the dull child. There are all sorts of children who have peculiar experiences at home, at school, or on the way in between, who are particularly susceptible to this form of corruption. I very sincerely hope that we may get this Bill, because I think we need something on these lines and the Committee needs to make it quite emphatic that it does not intend to provide loopholes through which the corrupters of children can find their way in an effort to make a little filthy lucre out of corrupting them.

Mr. John Foster: I think this Amendment unnecessary because, paradoxically, if it is not carried, the Bill as it stands will achieve most of what the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) wants. It does not say " any child." Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said, the Bill, as drafted, would take the average child—normal in that sense—the general run of children. If we put in the word " normal " we would begin to carve out classes of children and might have to say, " a child who could hear, a child who could read," and immediately we would get into very great difficulties.
I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment. As he knows, I have sympathy with some of the Amendments in his name. On this occasion the Bill as it stands is nearer to what he wants than is the Amendment.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I profoundly disagree with this Amendment. Not only is it in my opinion a stultifying Amendment, but—I am sure, without my hon. Friend so intending—it is a mischievous one as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said that if the word, " normal " had to be interpreted in court it would be absolutely meaningless, but in the connotation of the Clause, it would have, in my view, a very serious meaning. I have no doubt that it has a meaning which the Solicitor-General, as well as the Minister, would appreciate, namely, that, whereas the provisions of the Clause would apply only to a normal child, if the Amendment were accepted it would not apply in the case of a perverted child. The adjective " dull " is quite inadequate. The Amendment, if accepted, would excuse the case in which a perverted child was corrupted or depraved. That is the very case for which we want a Measure of this kind.
If such a case came before the court, the court would say, " This publication has had a devastating effect upon this child, but we can do nothing. This child is a perverted child and, therefore. the case does not come within this Section." But that is just the case we want to bring within the Clause. As I say, the Clause would become stultifying and ludicrous. What is worse, although I am sure it is not intended, in the last analysis it would become mischievous. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: rose —

Mr. William Keenan: I do not intend to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Bill, as I think they have been well covered, but I wonder whether the Committee is trying to protect children, or lawyers and publishers. Is it a Bill intended to protect children? Is it a Bill to prevent the continued distribution of horror comics? Most of the Amendments we have considered, like this Amendment, have been absolutely wrecking Amendments. This is a wrecking Amendment—we might as well recognise that. It seems to me that a deliberate effort is being made to make the Bill useless, whereas, generally, the House has felt disposed to do something in the interests of children.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), to whom I willingly gave way—

Mr. Keenan: I would have spoken after my hon. Friend if I had not spoken before.

Mr. Jenkins: — questioned my motives in this Amendment.
I have three children, which is as many as most hon. Members who have spoken. I do not think it fair to suggest that we are not considering the children. I do not think most hon. Members are less concerned about the protection of children. However one may be concerned about children, it is not right, nor in accordance with the wishes of the Committee, that a Bill, however circumscribed it may be—and in essence it is a censorship Bill—should be allowed to go through without every provision being very closely argued. There is no other way of doing that except by moving a series of Amendments.
I hope that no hon. Member, on either side of the Committee, unless he takes the view that censorship matters are so easy and straightforward that all that one wants to do is to proclaim one's object and not worry about how it is to be carried out, will impute motives to those of us who are thinking of this Committee's duty on these matters. However, considerably convinced by what the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from " fall " to the end of the Clause.
The Amendment concerns part of the end of the Clause, where there is a semi-purported definition of " corrupt." It is not, in fact, a definition of " corrupt," but it appears, however, to give some guidance on it. I am asking the Committee to exclude the whole of the words which appear in brackets at the end of the Clause, so that it would read:
 This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—

(a) the commission of crimes; or

(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or
(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;

in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall."
I am amused to note that there is undoubtedly, a Humpty-Dumpty in the Home Office, who has followed the usual line of saying:
 When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
I want to give that Humpty-Dumpty in the Home Office a word of advice. In the words of the March Hare:
 Then you should say what you mean.' ' I do,' Alice replied; ' at least I mean what I say—that is the same thing you know'.
That is exactly what has happened here.
Unfortunately, that draftsman in the Home Office is a very bad lawyer. He is determined to try to make it easy for the bench of magistrates or the jury to decide what " corrupt " means, but he has fallen into the trap, and has made it much harder for them by trying to give a meaning which the word does not possess.
This is what " corrupt " means, taken from the Oxford Dictionary:
 To render morally unsound or ' rotten '; to destroy the moral purity or chastity of; to pervert or ruin (a good quality); to debase, defile.
The chairman of a bench of magistrates or a judge or jury know perfectly well what corruption is, and when they have considered the work in question they will decide whether it corrupts. But let us see what Humpty-Dumpty has tried to do. He has put it in this way, and has said,
 into whose hands it might fall (whether by inciting or encouraging him to commit crimes or acts of violence or cruelty or in any other way whatsoever).
The Bill contains five tests. The Government have not been able to define what is a horror comic, and so they have had to say that it is a work which, in a particular way, tends to corrupt. What they have done has been to provide five safeguards to the defendant. The first of these is to say that the work in question shall be only a
 book, magazine or other like work 
mainly or wholly comprised of stories told in pictures. That is the first way in which the field is limited.
The second thing that the Government have done is to say that the Bill shall apply only to

"(a) the commission of crimes; or
(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or
(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature."

In other words, the Government have excluded all the sex stuff. Last Thursday I attacked—I think, rightly—the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) when he went into the question of sex matters and pornography, which the Bill does not cover. That, therefore, is the second safeguard.

4.45 p.m.

The third safeguard is whether
 the work as a whole would tend to corrupt.

The work has to be considered as a whole as to whether it corrupts. The next safeguard is that the person affected must be a child or young person. Those are four of the safeguards in the Bill, of which we are trying to narrow the scope, and rightly so.

The Amendment concerns a quite diferent point. The next Amendment, in page 1, line 13, proposes to leave out the word " whether." By omitting " whether," we would go a long way to wreck the purpose which the Government have in mind, because " would tend to corrupt " would then be defined by the words
 inciting or encouraging him to commit crimes or acts of violence or cruelty…

Dr. King: There is also an Amendment, in line 15, to leave out
 or in any other way whatsoever.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am coming to that.
By leaving out " whether," the purpose would be to deal with the class of horror comic which incited or encouraged the child or young person to commit crimes. We should then be left with the words
 or in any other way whatsoever.
If we deleted " whether " and retain
 or in any other way whatsoever 
the bench might well regard the matter in accordance with the ejusdem generis rule, and say that that was inciting or encouraging a young person
 to commit crimes or acts of violence or cruelty or in any other way whatsoever,
meaning " in any other cruel or violent way whatsoever." That is exactly why I

do not think the definition contained in the Clause is of any assistance.
The Clause seeks to give to a word a meaning which that word does not possess. If the Government are trying to extend its meaning, they do not need to do so. If the story in question is told in pictures and relates to the commission of crimes, and if the work as a whole would tend to corrupt, an offence is created. There is no need to add
 by inciting or encouraging him to commit crimes…
The addition of those words simply provides unnecessary difficulties for the bench and for the jury. They provide no safeguards for the Government's desire to make the penalty severe.
This is not a " loophole " case. I am not arguing it on the ground that, by excluding the words, any greater opportunity is given to the defence; nor would the prosecution be assisted one whit. What I am saying is that it is wholly wrong, in Acts of Parliament, to try to give different meanings to words which have a perfectly ordinary, plain meaning and which can be left to the chairman of a bench or to the jury.
I agree with a great many of the observations which I heard the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) make last Thursday. He has personal experience as chairman of a bench, and I hope he will agree with what I have said in moving my Amendment, for I believe that benches and juries can easily be misled. We do not need to define words which are in common parlance, and I believe that the best thing that could happen would be the exclusion of these words.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not for one moment suppose that the Government will consider accepting the Amendment, and I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has understood the terminology of the Clause. He has assisted the Committee by extracting from the dictionary a definition of the word " corrupt," but that has no relationship whatever to the situation with which the Clause confronts us.
What we have to do is to consider the meaning in relation to the context of this particular Clause and not in relation to the dictionary. I say that because


anyone with any experience knows that the scope of corruption is boundless, just as the variety of the human mind is infinite. If the Bill is to be effective, that factor is a matter which has to be taken into consideration.
There are two viewpoints which, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has taken into account. There is a sense of the word " corruption " which may make it merely an abstract matter; that is to say, a horror comic may corrupt the mind of a child without that effect going any further. However, there is also another effect and meaning of corruption, namely, the commission of some crime or other act. That is a positive action and is an entirely different matter. I imagine that the draftsman at the Home Office is not quite so foolish or obtuse or as incompetent as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, because the draftsmen has obviously applied his mind to this very important refinement that it is necessary to cover if this provision is to be effective.
That is why the problem is not a question of defining, but a question of such a catalogue as the Amendment seeks to seclude. That is why these words are put in parenthesis, to guide the courts by showing that it is not merely a question of the corruption of the mind and no more, but that it is also a question whether the corruption goes further and results in the commission of some crime or some act indicated in the Clause. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the Clause without these words would be elliptical and would be ineffectual. Therefore, I am certain that the Home Secretary should reject the Amendment, and that it is right that it should be rejected.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): On a point of order. I am not quite clear, Sir Charles, whether it was the intention of the Chair that this Amendment should be taken in isolation, or whether it was the intention to invite the Committee at the same time to consider the next two Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), in page 1, line 13, to leave out " whether," and in page 1, line 15, to leave out " or in any other way whatsoever." In a sense they are interlocking.

The Chairman: They are not only interlocking, but it is impossible to save

them, and so they must be discussed together.

Mr. J. Foster: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) argued, I think, that the word " corrupt " covered everything mentioned by the words in parenthesis.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the light of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. Foster: Yes, in the light of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I would suggest to him that there are some cases of violence which would not come within the ordinary meaning of " corrupt." If I am wrong about that, I would still suggest to him that it is arguable that some acts do not come within the ordinary meaning of " corrupt," and that, therefore, the parenthesis does extend the word " corrupt " in a direction in which the Bill is intended to be extended and in which, I should have thought, one would have supported the intention of the Bill.
In other words, the Bill is intended to catch the horror comic which incites children to commit acts of violence, which, I should have thought, it was quite possible a court would have thought were not, in the case of certain acts of violence, within the ordinary meaning of corruption. Some might, some might not.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Would my hon. and learned Friend help a layman? Can he be more specific about what acts of violence could come under that heading?

Mr. Foster: I had in mind a child who, after reading a horror comic, was always assaulting his little friends without warning them, coming up and sticking something in their backs, or hitting them hard. I should have thought it was not a strain of language to have said, " This is a terribly corrupted child who, after reading a horror comic, is always assaulting his little friends without any warning."

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is, I should say, quite right in thinking that, perhaps, no enormous difference would be made to the terms of the Bill if we left out altogether the words in brackets. However, they are there to help, and it is my submission that they do help.
They are there to help the magistrates and they are there to help the courts, because we can get out of a dictionary very wide definitions of the word " corrupt ", perhaps wide enough to cover every category of the results of the portrait of these things enumerated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in respect of their effect on children and young persons. I believe it to be fair—and I talk in the presence of so experienced a magistrate as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—to say that magistrates' courts are more used to the use of the word " corrupt " in connection with obscenity. That is the form in which it has been most busily used in legislation.
It was thought to be helpful to add something in explanation, in exegesis, of the word " corrupt " here to indicate some things about it first, that the type of crime referred to, the type of incident of a repulsive or horrible nature, was not one in any sense confined to sex, and that the tendency to corrupt was not one confined merely to exciting horror, shock or disgust at reading about it. We wanted to indicate something that takes a more active part in the process of perverting or corrupting a child.
Therefore, it was thought wise to give instances—they purport only to be instances—of the way in which this kind of publication might tend to corrupt, namely, by inciting or encouraging the commission of crimes or acts of violence or cruelty. But, having got as far as that, we should, in our belief, make the Bill too narrow if we stopped there, because clearly we could have corruption by works of this kind which did not go as far as to amount to inciting or encouragement to commit crimes or acts of violence just in that field—the naked violence field.
What I had in mind was the kind of state of mind that might be induced in certain types of children by provoking a kind of morbid brooding or ghoulishness or mental ill health that would result from matters of that kind, if we left out some further words, the words here " in any other way whatsoever."
I do not think necessarily, with respect to my hon. Friend, we adopt his applicacation of the ejusdein generis rule here. It

does not matter. If we left out these words, then, in our belief, we should be making the Clause too narrow once more, because while I think we all agree that sex is merely incidental in this connection we might none the less have trouble in that respect if, for instance, a crime was the crime of rape or if an incident of a repulsive or horrible nature was one with some slightly sexual inclination attached to it. So it seemed to us that we were maintaining here in its fullest sense the full meaning of tendency to corrupt resulting from this kind of work dealing with this kind of subject matter.
5.0 p.m.
I think, perhaps, I ought to add that I am not very well read—I confess it to the Committee—in horror comics, owing to limited time. In order to give an illustration of what I was saying about sex which is only incidental, I recall, although I am not certain of the details, a specimen horror comic which I am not certain whether I showed to anybody on the other side of the Committee. There was the usual eternal triangle story. The variant was that the wife and the intended paramour arranged that they and the husband should take off in some kind of space conveyance to a suitable planet, where the wife and paramour would dispose of the husband for their own purposes.
They all wore space suits, beautiful transparent things inside which one is kept at an even pressure. When they arrived on the planet the wife and her paramour punctured the husband's space suit with a revolver bullet, whereby he perished in circumstances quite horrific. Having done that, the other couple found themselves unable to manage those matters for which they had purposely gone to the planet. I take that illustration from a horror comic to show that it is wise to keep in the Bill words like
…or in any other way whatsoever).

Mr. Ede: In the first place, I ought to disclaim any right to be set up as a kind of person who, as chairman of the bench, might give intelligent guidance to my colleagues as to what offence could or could not be committed within the terms of the Clause. I approach this matter as one who may have to administer the law in court, and not necessarily as chairman of the bench.
I dislike having too many words in an Act of Parliament which I have to try to construe, because people will try to make each one of them mean something. That is why I had a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in his desire to keep the words mentioned in the Amendment out of the Bill. I fear that in certain circumstances they might lead to more confusion, either in the jury room or in the magistrates' room, than need exist in order to do justice according to the desire that lies behind the Clause.
It seemed to me that the Solicitor-General was rather supporting that view because he said, in effect, " We did this so as to limit the Bill, and then we found that we had limited it a little too much, and we are putting in a few more words to expand it again." The space suit is going up and down in circumstances where its correct inflation is a matter of the highest importance and might lead to even worse complications than the incidents which the hon. and learned Gentleman adduced from his own study of the periodicals. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider this matter again, and that they will not intimate at the moment that they are indissolubly wedded to the words in the Bill.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I was not quite clear, from what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, whether he was expressing the opinion that the ejusdem generis rule would not apply to the words,
…or in any other way whatsoever).
It seems to me rather an important point, because, if it does apply, it might exclude those cases of corruption in the form of corruption of character as distinct from crimes and acts of violence which he mentioned.

The Solicitor-General: My own view, which I submit to the Committee, is that the words here are so wide that they would exclude the application of the rule.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to say a few words rather in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I should have thought that it was very much better if the words in brackets in

the Clause were omitted. It is not quite clear what effect they are going to have. Some Members take the view that the words in brackets extend the ordinary definition of the word " corruption." Other Members, including the Solicitor-General, take the view that they limit it. We are not agreed as to whether the words in brackets, if they stay in the Bill, will limit or extend the normal interpretation by the courts of the word " corruption."
If the words were intended to expand the ordinary definition of the word " corrupt," I should say that they were unfortunate. We all know what evil we are trying to stop by means of the Bill, and most of us know that at the same time we are anxious to prevent any unnecessary inroads into the ordinary laws governing the freedom of the Press. To take an example, it is notorious that any schoolboy novel contains inevitably some description of acts of violence, because schoolboys are notorious for knocking each other about and committing acts of violence which are not crimes.
The Bill talks about acts of violence or cruelty as something different from crimes. Schoolboys are notoriously cruel to each other. They always have been, and presumably always will be. Every schoolboy novel must contain some description of acts of cruelty by one boy to another or by a bunch of boys to other boys or by a master to boys, but no one hitherto has thought of trying to suppress schoolboy novels on that ground.
We may turn, by analogy, to schoolboy magazines, which take the form not of novels but of books or magazines consisting
wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures…
They may be equally as harmless as traditional schoolboy novels, on which the Home Secretary and I and probably everybody else in the Committee has been brought up. If one had pictorial representations of that kind no one would want to stop them, but inevitably they would contain acts of violence and of cruelty, because otherwise they would not be true of school life. Therefore, they ought not to be stopped.
We do not want in the Bill words which will make the publication of harmless books and magazines of that kind an offence. I am very worried that if we


extend the word " corruption " to mean something that may encourage a boy to commit an act of violence towards another we shall be drawing the line very wide indeed, far wider than anyone wants to draw it. After all, it is one thing to suppress crime, and the commission of crime is only one of the three matters with which the Clause deals. The Clause deals with acts of violence or acts of cruelty. I do not believe that we are ever going to stop acts of cruelty among schoolboys or that we are or ever going to see any honest, truthful, valid book about school life which does not contain some act of cruelty.
Consider " Tom Brown's Schooldays." Suppose that was reproduced in magazine form with pictures. It might well be said that such a magazine would tend to encourage acts of violence. Is it intended that that kind of thing should be stopped? I should have thought that the answer would be quite clearly in the negative, provided that the operative word in this Clause was " corrupt," and we left out the words in brackets.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is my hon. Friend not confusing two things. The propensity of a boy to violence or cruelty is one thing, and it exists without any book at all. But if a book so corrupts a boy's mind that it leads to acts of violence or cruelty, that surely must be an entirely different matter. That is not a natural propensity.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think I am called upon to answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. I am not at all sure that I know what the answer is.
I do not know whether I am confused or not, but what I am anxious about is that those who administer this Bill should not be confused. What I am anxious about is that those who are responsible for passing this very tricky piece of legislation—as indeed it is—are not themselves confused as to what they are doing or as to what they are minded to do. If I am confused, then it is not so much of an admission as a confession, and for the life of me I am not quite sure how this Clause would be interpreted if it were put to the test.
My hon. and learned Friend talks about propensity. I suppose if at any time we have to consider whether a particular

child is corrupted by a magazine that it has read, we shall have to consider that propensity. It seems to me that if the context of this Clause fell to be interpreted by reference, for example, to " Tom Brown's Schooldays " the question for the court would be whether that book would tend to corrupt a child. Most of us would expect a negative answer. It may well be said that every boy has a propensity for a bit of rough play at school, and, therefore, would not be corrupted by reading such a book. On the other hand, if the question arose as to whether the reading of " Tom Brown's Schooldays " encouraged him to commit an act of cruelty, I should have thought that quite a number of juries might have said it would.
Whether it does or whether it does not, I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with me that it is not intended that a book of that calibre should be suppressed. We might in the future get an illustrated version of that book in magazine form or some other form, and a question of prosecution under the Bill might arise. I think that this is a most relevant illustration of what we are trying to define and limit by the Clause, and I hope that, on reflection, the Home Secretary will see that there is some wisdom in omitting the whole of the words in the brackets.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: I should be inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) about the word " encourage ". I find it a little difficult to see what the word " encourage " could really add in this context, but it is perhaps not a matter of great importance. The point I wish to put is this. I may be alone in this, but it seems to me, having listened carefully to the debate, that the point upon which the Committee has disagreed can be put in this way. No doubt when the hon. Member for Islington, East says that there has always been cruelty among schoolboys he is quite right, and where there are two human beings there is always the risk of cruelty from one to the other or from each to both.
This is the question I should like to put to the learned Solicitor-General. Am I right in thinking that the purpose of these words is that corruption must be such as is likely to tend to action or behaviour and not merely a corruption


that is worsening of the soul, so to speak, which escapes human estimation? Is the purpose of the words that the corruption must be such that it would tend to result in boys being more ill-behaved than would otherwise happen? If that is the purpose of the words, it seems to me that from the point of view of the anticensorship champions, with which I have very great sympathy, these words are helpful and that they tend to do no harm.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I should like to join with those who wish to have these words left out. The more one looks into the possibilities the more absurd they become. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to the situation which might arise if an illustrated version of " Tom Brown's Schooldays " were produced. There are many more intermediate examples of illustrated works which could be proceeded against under this Bill. For example, there are illustrated stories from the Bible, which are often put into very respectable, reputable children's magazines.
Take the story of David and Goliath. What could be more of a suggestion to some small boy thinking of an act of cruelty than that he should take a catapult and stone and use it as a weapon against a stronger adversary? Many small children have done precisely that before they ever read the story of David and Goliath?
But under this Bill it would be dangerous for a publisher to produce an illustrated story of David and Goliath because small children might be incited to follow that example. I do not know about Jezebel, but there is the case of Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple. There are all sorts of things that can happen, and one hopes the Home Secretary is not going to make it dangerous, if not illegal, for publishers to put out illustrated stories of the Bible. This is quite serious, because in the Bible there are many dramatic, vivid, exciting and valiant incidents which many publishers might well think of producing with illustrations.

Mr. W. R. Williams: But these pictures have been exhibited for hundreds of years now. Can my hon. Friend recall a single incident in any

court where it has been proved that having looked at these pictures has resulted in the commission of a crime?

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend is beginning to see the absurdity of the position, because these pictures—

Mr. Maurice Orbach: On a point of order. I submit to you, Sir Rhys, that during the last 10 minutes we have not been discussing the Amendment which is before us. We have been discussing an Amendment already disposed of, because if you look at the Bill you will see that it states:
…the work as a whole would tend to corrupt…
None of the hon. Members who has spoken has been talking of the work as a whole. They have been talking about the insertion of a story in a book which might tend to corrupt.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It is not for me to determine the validity of the argument, but the hon. Members have certainly been in order in what they have said in regard to the leaving out of these words.

Dr. H. Morgan: The whole thing is a farce.

Mr. Wyatt: As this is an attempt at censorship, perhaps I may express the hope that we are to be allowed to discuss all these details, because this is a thoroughly bad Bill, and is going to make the position of publishers and other businesses worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), by the example he gave, showed the absurdity of the position. He rightly said that these illustrated stories have been in circulation for hundreds of years and he then asks me, " Can you appreciate this particular situation arising from the Bill?" Of course I cannot, because the Bill has not been passed.

Mr. Williams: I did not say that. I asked my hon. Friend if he could point to any particular instance where this point had arisen.

Mr. Wyatt: I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would just be as easy in the future as it has been in the past.
It is going to be very difficult to determine whether any particular book and any


particularstory has this or that influence on any particular child. It can only be a matter of conjecture, it is not capable of proof, and in the accumulation of ideas which grow up in a child' consciousness nobody can say that it is one as against another which has incited him to perform a certain act of violence. It might well be that the story of David and Goliath in illustrated form in a magazine would put the final picture in his mind of the means by which he could perform his act of violence.
Indeed, it is far more reasonable that a child would perform a simple act of violence of that kind than one of the more complicated acts of violence often depicted in the horror comics to which people take exception. That is so, because no elaborate apparatus is required. For instance, I think that the story of " The Pit and the Pendulum," if illustrated, would not incite a child to violence because he would not think of constructing such an amazing artificial room the roof of which gradually descends to the swinging of a pendulum which cuts the victim in half as it gets close to him.
On the other hand, a publisher would be running a grave risk if he produced an illustrated version of " The Pit and the Pendulum " once this Bill becomes law. He would also run the risk of difficulties if he produced an illustrated version of " Billy Bunter," because " Billy Bunter " contains many incidents which might incite children to violence, such as jamming people between doors and pushing people into fireplaces. I imagine it would not be a great loss to literature if " Billy Bunter " disappeared, and it will disappear in illustrated versions once this Bill is passed.
Almost any great work of literature contains in it some act or acts of violence, so there are large ranges of literature which no publisher would dare to illustrate. In fact, it would even be difficult for the Lambs to write again their " Tales from Shakespeare." We shall not be able to have illustrated versions of " Macbeth " once this Bill becomes law because of the acts of violence in it which children might be incited to imitate. These words are so loose and would eliminate so much—

Mr. Keenan: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. Is the hon. Member dealing with

the Amendment, because to me it seems as if he has been reading last Thursday's HANSARD to get his material.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will look at the words of the Amendment, they are to leave out from " fall " to end of " Clause." It is not for me to determine.

Mr. Wyatt: I hope that my hon. Friend does not think a good argument becomes bad because it is repeated. I am sorry if he is bored at hearing it again.

Mr. W. R. Williams: It might stimulate him to violence.

Mr. Wyatt: It is important that hon. Members should understand what they are doing, what they are making possible. What they are doing is to make it difficult for perfectly reputable publishers, when trying to depict great works of literature in pictures, to risk undertaking anything which is not completely emasculated.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I am not very impressed by what the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has said about the Bible, " Macbeth " and the other literature to which he referred. Everybody appreciates that the stories in the Bible, and also " Macbeth," have to be read as a whole. What has been happening is that a horrible theme has been taken out of what is called a classic and has been depicted by itself. At that point, it ceases to be a classic. So far as the catapult is concerned, I do not know what harm a small boy would come to, except that he would probably be stopped by the police for carrying it. As to the argument about the temple, I cannot imagine a boy trying to pull down a temple.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been here throughout our debates. This Bill is for a special purpose and it is of no use publishers saying that they are being attacked by the Bill. They are not, and they know it. It will not affect publishers of literature at all.

Mr. Wyatt: It is all very well for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to stand at that Box and say what he thinks the Bill means. It will be the courts who will interpret it, and they may not take the same view.

Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. Gentleman will only do me the courtesy of reading the Bill, he will see that it cannot affect literature in any way. It is not my interpretation. The work has to be mainly in pictures. That is what we are fighting against. However, I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and in view of what has been said I am prepared to look at the wording of the Clause between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the light of the friendly observations of my right hon. and gallant Friend, to the effect that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(PENALTY FOR PRINTING, PUB- LISHING, &C., WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out " sells or lets on hire."
This Amendment and the next one on the Order Paper deal with the same point. This is an important point and is entirely different from any which we have discussed so far in the Committee.
My argument does not affect the question whether those who publish or print horror comics should be prosecuted, or the terms under which they should be prosecuted, or the terms on which they should be convicted. It is entirely a question whether the prosecution should be confined to those who print and publish as opposed to those who also sell and let on hire these horror comics. I am proposing in this Amendment that the Government should agree that the Bill should be confined to the prosecution of those who print or publish the works and not those who sell them.
The first reason why I propose this is that it would be unfair to newsagents and shops which sell different forms of liaterature and magazines and newspapers. They should not be implicated in being prosecuted because of the dissemination of horror comics. It may be said, " Well. if these newsagents or shops

choose to sell this material, they ought to be prosecuted." That implies that everyone who runs a shop where horror comics are sold must survey carefully what he sells.
This leads me to the main reason why I think this is a good Amendment. If the person who may sell the horror comic or the material has to survey it and make up his own mind whether he will sell it, the censorship may be taken out of the hands of the judge and the courts altogether and put into the hands of the bookseller or the newsagent.
This is not a fantastic fear, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Under the law of obscene libel—and this is the only experience we have had in the operation of this kind of law, and, therefore, we are entitled to quote the experience under it—there have been numerous occasions where an undiscriminating censorship was exercised by the bookseller and by the newsagent in a way which no one in this Committee, presumably, would approve, and in a way which the courts would not approve if the matter had ever been brought before them.
I will not go in detail into the examples which I cited during the Second Reading debate, of classic works which have had censorship imposed upon them not by the law of obscene libel but by a bookseller applying what he conceived to be that law. I am sure there is no hon. Member in the Committee, except possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who has such a passion against publishers that he wants to put them out of business altogether—

Mr. Keenan: No, just to regulate them.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I understand. I have always tried to understand the difference between liberty and licence, but nobody has been able to explain it. If my hon. Friend can enlighten us on that point later he will have done something that nobody from the days of John Milton to the present has ever been able to discover. Apart from my hon. Friend, who has a positive desire to regulate publishers, I do not believe there is anyone in the Committee who would wish to defend the idea of a censorship imposed by the vague understanding of booksellers about what might be the law.
If we wish to escape that difficulty, we can best do it by means of my Amendments. If the Government do not like the terms of the Amendments, there is on the Notice Paper a proposed new Clause which would go far to meet the same point. If the Government cannot accept my Amendments, perhaps they will indicate whether they will be able to accept the new Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the proposed new Clause now.

Mr. Foot: I am merely trying to help the Government, Sir Rhys. Perhaps that is an error into which I ought not to stray. However, it has helped to make progress on two previous occasions when the Government have been given latitude by the Chair to say that they would accept later Amendments. I was only trying to telescope the discussion, as usual, by asking the Government whether they would accept the proposed new Clause if they do not like my Amendments.
It is important that newsagents should be relieved of what I believe to be a hardship imposed upon them. It really is a hardship for a newsagent, who is a busy person, with masses of stuff pouring into his shop every week, to have to go through material in great detail to determine whether or not it comes within the terms of the Bill. Very dangerous precedents and difficulties would be created if newsagents and booksellers had to exercise this kind of censorship.
I once wrote a book which W. H. Smith & Son Ltd. would not circulate and would not include in their bills. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] I notice that there are a few lovers of censorship on the other side of the Committee. It was not the " Tribune " or a horror comic of that nature. I am sure that if the " Tribune " had been guilty of such a crime we would have received a letter from the National Executive of the Labour Party about it, but, so far, that is one complaint that has not been made.
It was wrong that W. H. Smith & Son Ltd. should have exercised censorship in that case. If we leave booksellers and newsagents liable to prosecution under the Clause, we are inviting them to make

sure that they do not sell any of these commodities and we are thereby inviting them to exercise a general indiscriminate censorship which could go very much wider than the terms of the Bill.
Much has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—the Government ought to take note that there have been as many Amendments and speeches from the Government benches as from the Opposition—about the difficulty of drawing a line. I admit that there have been powerful cases on both sides of the Amendments. The Government's defence all along has been, " We think we are drawing the line as carefully, fairly and precisely as we can." However, if we leave to booksellers the decision whether something shall be sold, as we are doing by leaving these words in the Bill, we shall abandon all the precise, carefully defined and carefully argued protections that we have discussed and leave merely to the vague opinions of booksellers the question whether or not they shall sell something.
We might well have a situation in which, although the Bill was certainly not designed to embrace a perfectly legitimate form of publication, booksellers and newsagents in many parts of the country might say, " It is too risky. Why should we run the risk? It is better to chuck it up and not sell the publication than to run the risk of putting it on the market." That could mean the victimisation of persons engaged in the production of quite proper publications which could not be described as horror comics at all.
By acceptance of my Amendment the Government would prove their good faith about the whole Bill and would show that it is directed to dealing with those who print and publish horror comics and is not intended to institute a new, vague and indiscriminate form of censorship exercised not by the courts but by booksellers and newsagents.

Mr. John Hall: I can understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) on behalf of retailers, newsagents and so on who might be caught under the Clause, but perhaps he would like to tell the Committee how he would deal with importers. [HON. MEMBERS: " Look at Clause 4."] As far as I can see, Clause '4 does not invalidate the point I am making.

The Deputy-Chairman: In any event, the question of the importer does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hall: Although the question does not arise on the Amendment, it is relevant to the Amendment, Sir Rhys. The hon. Gentleman is trying to delete from the Clause:
…sells or lets on hire…
It seems to me that an importer would be capable of importing horror comics into the country and then selling them or letting them on hire through libraries to the reading public, including children. I should like a little more information from the hon. Member on that point before I make up my mind about the merits of the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has had to say, and it is clear that once again we are becoming involved in the other Bill which is not now before the Committee. I tried to find out how my hon. Friends who are interested in the other Bill dealt with the problem in it, but they have just given it up. Their first Clause begins:
 Any person who shall distribute, circulate, sell, or offer for sale…
Therefore, when they come to deal constructively with the problem they just have to give it up in despair or else admit that it is an unreal problem on which we need not waste very much time.
These are not publications that booksellers have to weigh up very carefully one way or the other and ask themselves, " Are they just inside the law or just outside?" This is not a case of " Jude the Obscure " or anything like that. There is nothing at all obscure about it. These publications openly flaunt their objectionable features, and the specimens which were produced and quoted on Second Reading indicated that nobody need have any doubt as to whether they have a horror comic in their hands or not.
A person who sells over the counter or hires out one of these publications can have no doubt about what he is doing. After all, Milton did not have so much difficulty in deciding between licence and liberty as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) tried to make out. One of his famous lines runs:
 Licence they mean when they cry liberty.

Let us be very careful that one of the crimes that may be committed in the name of liberty is not to give licence for these publications to be handed over the counter in dark corners of shops in an effort to defeat the law. I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) argued that those who produce these things are more reprehensible than those who sell them. I think that that is the basis of his argument. Just as there would be no thieves if there were no receivers, so there would be no publishers of horror comics if there were no retailers of them.

Mr. M. Follick: No readers.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made a very fair point when he said that no one who had one of these things in his hands could be mistaken about what sort of publication it was. It is, of course, essential that the Bill should apply to retailers as well as to publishers, if there is to be effective power to destroy harmful publications in respect of which there has been a conviction, or to prevent their circulation pending proceedings. Their circulation will normally come to the notice of the police as a result of retail sales; it is difficult to think how it will otherwise come to light. If proceedings can be taken against only the publisher, or the printer, there would be a considerable delay while the necessary inquiries were being made. The result would be that the mischief would be done in the meantime by the sale of the offending publications. It would not be an offence on the part of the retailer, and he could continue sales, if the Amendment were accepted. In those circumstances it is essential to keep the retailer covered by the Bill, if it is to be at all effective. I recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has not been able to return a more favourable reply to the Amendment, and I am also sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) felt it necessary to take the extremely discouraging attitude on this Amendment which he has found it


necessary to take on most of the Amendments moved from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Ede: And the other side.

Mr. Jenkins: And the other side. He has adopted a slightly contradictory line in our discussions about the other Bill, the Obscene Publications Bill. If we mention the Obscene Publications Bill, he turns round reprovingly and says that we are using this Bill as a pacemaker for the Obscene Publications Bill and that he will not be a party to it. But if the Obscene Publications Bill happens to contain a provision which seems to be at variance with an Amendment moved by myself or my hon. Friends, he points out the contradiction.
I do not think that there is a particular contradiction here, because there are provisions in the Obscene Publications Bill which will strengthen the way in which prosecutions may be made, as is not done in this Bill. It is generally understood that the whole of the Obscene Publications Bill would be clarifying. It would also be a liberalising Bill. The Bill we are discussing today, although it is no doubt necessary, is not liberalising but restrictive by its very nature. Booksellers are confronted with a very different position after a restricting Bill, however worthy, has been passed than after a liberalising Bill has been passed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) mentioned a difficulty that will arise if this Amendment is not accepted. It is that booksellers themselves might begin to apply a censorship more strict than that which the law would sustain and there is obviously a very real danger of that. He said that if his new Clause were accepted that might to some extent ease that difficulty. There is also a danger, if one is to proceed against booksellers, of the possibility that the proceedings may be only against the bookseller. He may plead guilty to save trouble, and the other people concerned, whether the author—the artist in the case of pictorial publications—or the publisher, are then necessarily assumed to be guilty of publishing objectionable and corrupting publications without having any opportunity at all to offer evidence or a defence on their own behalf.
5.45 p.m.
Another new Clause deals precisely with that point, and if we could have an indication from the Government that they would look favourably at that, that might be another matter. There is a slightly new point in the Amendment. Under the existing law of obscene libel, the common practice—although not the invariable practice—appears to be that if proceedings have to be taken against a bookseller, they are proceedings merely for a destruction order. He is not indicted on a criminal charge. The goods complained of are merely destroyed, but invariably the criminal proceedings are against the author or the publisher. That puts the bookseller, who is necessarily less aware of what he is selling than are the author and publisher, in a stronger position, because he does not run so much risk. He is not tempted to apply this censorship as he would be if he were liable to criminal proceedings as are the author and publisher—as they should be, subject to proper safeguards.
Of course, there can be no defence that the author and publisher did not know what they were putting out. We now appear to be envisaging a position in which the bookseller, author and publisher are all equally liable to criminal proceedings. In the very nature of things, the bookseller cannot be expected to know what he is selling as exactly as do the author and publisher.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Do I take it that my hon. Friend is suggesting that these newsagents have been unaware of the type of publication they have been selling?

Mr. Jenkins: If I may say so, that question, like so many of the points with which we are dealing, assumes that one is concerned only with the person who is obviously and completely guilty. What one is necessarily worried about in the restricting operation of the Bill is the marginal case. The person who does not make his living out of horror comics, but who may at some time or other have sold a certain number of publications which were on the borderline between horror comics and respectable publications, comes into that category. One cannot close one's mind to the fact that there are these marginal cases. I am concerned about these marginal cases, and I think that it is very likely that a great number


of them may sell these publications from time to time without knowing exactly what they are.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: In the commercial world there is, I believe, a doctrine known as caveat emptor—" the buyer has to look after himself." The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who appears by virtue of his political training and beliefs to be willing to regulate everybody else's lives, seems to be unwilling to regulate his own profession.
It seems to me that newsagents and public libraries—this provision must cover public libraries as well as ordinary newsagents—must accept the same commercial responsibilities and obligations as every other business undertaking. In the business world if one buys something one examines it to see that it is in fact what one wants to buy, and one rejects it if it is not. I fail to see why newsagents or public libraries should be put in any different position from that of other members of the community.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an example of any other type of merchandise in which there is a tendency to corrupt some one into whose hands it might fall, and where that is a criminal offence?

Dr. King: We are dealing with an industry which is largely based in America. By the time the Bill becomes law there will be no printers or publishers of horror comics in this country. If we were to accept the Amendment we should leave in possession of the field the only instrument by which the horror comic can be circulated here. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State seemed to dismiss the Amendment on the basic ground that in any case the Bill was directed only against horror comics and that we all know what they are. Do we all know what they are? Does the Bill tell everybody exactly what they are? If not, are there not strong grounds for accepting the Amendment or something like it?
I find it hard to believe the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) that everyone must accept this

as a commercial risk—that he must look at the product and see whether it is good, bad or indifferent. That is not the point. The point is that he has to interpret Clause 1. That is perfectly simple if it is merely a matter of seeing whether he is or is not being asked to sell a horror comic.
I think we know, and that all newsagents know, what a horror comic is. That is a simple point, but the Bill has not been able to define what a horror comic is. I am certainly not clear exactly what will come under the Bill, and, until I am more clear, I shall be favourably disposed towards the Amendment or something of a similar nature.

Mr. Wyatt: One of the difficulties that there has always been in arguing the law of obscene libel is that the judgments of magistrates vary so considerably about what is or is not an obscene libel. They often seem unable, perhaps through no fault of their own, to draw a clear distinguishing line between what is intended as literature or a serious work and what is intended to be obscene.
These are magistrates who are accustomed to exercising a judicial function. In the Clause we are asked, in effect, to give newsagents the same judicial function, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said. The news-agent has now to look through all his stuff, read everything in it before he starts to sell it, and satisfy himself that it will not come within the range of the Bill. If I were a newsagent I should be very cautious about this and I should frequently rule out from se all sorts of publications which a magistrate might think it perfectly harmless and perfectly reasonable to sell.
Earlier, we had the example given that sometimes people, to justify an attempt to purvey sadistic material, will take some of the more violent circumstances out of the Bible and illustrate them and sell them in the guise of respectable literature. It would be very difficult for a newsagent to tell what had happened in a particular case. I think it much wiser to leave it to people who have to exercise a judicial function. That is what happens if we exclude the person who " sells or lets on hire."
It is then asked—if we exclude the person who sells or lets on hire—what


will happen to works which are imported? There is a Clause which deals with imported works, and there are Customs officers to go through them. A good many officers are employed in that operation. In any case, provision could be made, if the Government so desired, to tighten up that Clause if a loophole were left after the words " sells or lets on hire " had been left out. It would merely mean a little further adjustment between now and a later stage. It is a very bad practice to make every newsagent into a forced judge of what is or is not harmful of the things he sells.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is clear that those who support the Amendment have very deep concern about the fact that this provision brings within its ambit the retailer and not merely the printer and the publisher. I have some sympathy with them. It is clear that one must oppose the Amendment as drafted, because there is a great distinction between the horror comic and the law of obscene libel. None the less, that does not mean that it is not possible between now and the next stage of the Bill to give them the substance of what they want by one of the well-known forms of proviso.
I will illustrate the point. Suppose we insert a proviso that if the retailer did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to ascertain, that the work was in contravention of the Clause, then we could give him the opportunity of going to the court and saying, " I did not know that I was is possession of a horror comic, and, what is more, I could not reasonably have known that it was a horror comic."
It is true that one may disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), but they are not quite as puerile as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) thought they were, because what he says is true. In 90 per cent.—probably 95 per cent.—of the horror comic cases the result is obvious: a certain conviction. But about 5 per cent. will be borderline cases, and that is where injustice occurs.
The only way to assist is by a proviso where the burden is on the accused to satisfy the court that in the circumstances he behaved reasonably. I do not want to

express an opinion one way or another. I am not sitting on their side of the fence or on the Government side; but I thought it right to point out that factor.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for his contribution to the debate. I only wish that it could have been made from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee. I do not think that anybody could listen to what the hon. Gentleman said and then doubt that there is a reasonable point in the Amendment. It is one which can affect the question of whether injustice is done to publishers and to the retailers as well.
Therefore, I do not think it right that the Amendment should be dismissed as trivial; nor do I think it proper that it should be dismissed on the rather strange ground put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that in another Bill, which we are not discussing, somebody else had not been able to solve a rather different problem. It seems to me—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend will recollect that his hon. Friend the Member for 'Stechford (Mr. Jenkins), when speaking 'after me, dealt at some length with the provisions of that Bill.

Mr. Foot: Yes, he was provoked. If my right hon. Friend refers to this other Bill, it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford is entitled to refer to it as well. I do not think there is any grievance on that account.
My grievance was that my right hon. Friend dismissed these Amendments as being trivial and hardly worthy of consideration, on the ground, as I have said, that in another Bill, which we are not discussing, a different point has not been dealt with. That does not seem to be an adequate reason for not discussing these Amendments now.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) apparently thought that I was in favour of wrecking every industry but my own. He has now left the Chamber—I do not know whether he wished to know the answer. In this Bill we are dealing with a different kind of subject matter than, for instance, coal, steel, soap, or any other commodity. The principle connected


with the free expression of opinion is something with which one must deal on a different plane than when dealing with other topics. We should be more careful how we impose restrictions when dealing with the free expression of opinion I than with any other commodity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, apparently, is claiming that he cannot distinguish between the free expression of opinion and the sale of soap, or whatever other commodity it is from which he makes his living.
Here we are dealing with an important matter, with the question of how the retailer and the publisher are to be protected. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) argued, very reasonably, that this Amendment might not be the best way of achieving the purpose, and he outlined a very good form of words which could be used in an endeavour to obtain what I am seeking to obtain. I say that with the greater emphasis. because I think that there was a strong point in what was said by another hon. Member opposite, that this Amendment might make it difficult to deal with the problem of imported horror comics. I understand that a real difficulty exists there. But instead of rejecting these Amendments out of hand, the Government should at least be prepared to say that they will look at the matter again.
After the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, I hope that the Government will be willing to consider this matter again—even though this Amendment is withdrawn and the others are not moved. As I said earlier, they will have an opportunity, later, to meet the point which has been raised. Perhaps a suitable Amendment could be made under the new Clause to which I referred in my opening remarks. The present words may not be good legal language, and I do not mind if the language is changed. But I hope that the Government will be ready to examine this problem afresh?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: While there is no question of accepting this Amendment—retailers must remain in the Bill—and though I do not wish to stave off a Division by making any promise, I can say that between now and the next stage of the Bill we will consider what has been said. I do not wish to mislead the hon. Member into thinking that I am making

any kind of promise, but we will give the matter consideration.

Mr. Foot: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall await the next stage of the Bill, to see what is proposed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after " hire " to insert:
 knowing it would have a corrupting effect as defined in section one of this Act.

The Chairman: I think it would be convenient if we discussed this Amendment together with the next two proposed Amendments to the same line.

Sir F. Soskice: I had hoped to catch your eye, Sir Charles, on the next Amendment, but I can deploy such arguments as I wish equally well, or badly, on this Amendment.
We have just decided that we should not leave out retailers and newsagents from the scope of the Bill. If they are kept in, the question arises whether we tend to put too much of a burden, not only on them, but on the printers and publishers and all persons who have these horror comics in their possession, by the wording which we have chosen in Clause 2. May I make it perfectly clear that I am convinced that this is a very necessary Bill, and that I should not wish to be a party to a change in its terms which would have the effect of unduly impairing its efficacy. In moving this Amendment, my task is somewhat abbreviated by reason of the fact that a good many arguments in support of it have already been canvassed.
As at present worded, the Clause does this: it puts the retailer—to take him as an example—in the position that he may have had a considerable stock of publications delivered to him. They may be publications which it is his intention to sell. He may not have studied them. He may scarcely even have opened them. Nevertheless, as I read the Clause, if the publication in question is a publication which conforms to the description in Clause 1, and if, in so conforming, it would tend to corrupt a child or a young person, he, by simply having it in his possession as part of the stock on his premises, commits an offence.
The question I first wish to raise on this Amendment is whether that is not putting an undue burden upon the retailer. Excellent as is the object of the Bill, it has been pointed out by many hon. Members—indeed, it is obvious—that we must weigh against its excellent purpose the danger of infringing too much upon the freedom of publication. I think we would all accept that. By this Amendment, therefore, I seek to put in the form of a question to the Government the following argument. Should not we make it necessary before a conviction can be obtained under Clause 2 against any of the persons therein enumerated—printers, publishers, newsagents, and so on—to establish affirmatively that there was on his or her part an element of volition or purpose?
Should it not be necessary for the prosecution to prove, either pointing to the very nature of the publication itself or to other circumstances, that the mind of the accused person had gone with what he did? In other words, that he was conscious of the fact, and intended that the publication in question should have the debasing effect described in Clause 1? I know there are dangers about accepting an Amendment in the terms in which it is proposed. Here we have simply sought the best wording that we could find in order to raise the question. We are not wedded to the terms of the Amendment, and we ask the Government to accept its purpose as distinct from its precise wording.
Should it not be necessary to establish that the newsagent, shall we say, who has a stock of these horror comics in his possession, knew what was their purport; that he knew what effect they were likely to have upon young persons, and intended, by their working on the mind of young persons, to earn money and to make a profit of selling the publications? I suggest to the Home Secretary that we are perhaps going a little too far if, as I read the Clause—perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will tell me if I am wrong—in effect what we do is to make a conviction automatic if it can be shown by an objective test that the publication in question would tend to corrupt; if, by that objective test, or any necessary test, it could be shown that it would have that tendency; and if it can be shown that it was part of the stock of the bookseller

which, in due course, he would have put out for sale. I suggest, for the consideration of the Home Secretary, that that is going too far.
One difficulty about an Amendment of this sort is that if we look at the aim of any of the persons who sell or write or publish these publications, their principal purpose is to make money out of them. They do not care whether they corrupt or not. That, obviously, presents a serious difficulty of drafting. Nevertheless, I think that if the plain facts of the situation demonstrate that they intend to make money by selling or purveying the publications, and they know and are fully conscious that the publications will have a debasing effect on children, they will then fall within the meaning of the wording which we have chosen. If they do not fall precisely within that meaning, I ask the Government to see whether they can find some words to prove at least that amount of intent.
We raised this matter on Second Reading, and we think that it is one of principle and of some importance. I should certainly not wish in any way to wreck the Bill or to make it inefficacious to achieve the purpose which we all have in mind, but I request the Government to give the Amendment serious consideration—as I am sure they have done since Second Reading—and to find, between now and the Report stage, some wording which will make it necessary for the attainment of a conviction to show that some conscious purpose to deprave existed in the mind of the person accused.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): The Government appreciate, as I am sure the Committee appreciate, the restrained way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) put forward this suggestion. We will most certainly look at it. I wish, however, to indicate what it seems to us are the difficulties involved.
We are all of one mind in wanting to put a stop to the publication, sale and letting for hire of this kind of offending work. That being so, it seems to us that by placing upon the prosecution the burden of proving either some specific intent of the seller, or knowledge on the part of the seller, that the work should have a corrupting effect, we shall make it almost impossible to stamp out this


kind of publication. That is our fear. I believe that were we to put into the Bill the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in relation to intent, that is to say, if we placed on the prosecution the burden of proving the sale was with intent to corrupt children or young persons, it would be very difficult to see how the prosecution could ever attain to that proof.
One can pick up the obvious horror comic and say, " Here is someone intentionally selling this document which, by the objective test "—which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is the right test—" would have a tendency to corrupt." One can then go further and say, " Here is somebody who is selling this object which must obviously have that tendency. One must presume him to intend the ordinary consequences of what he does."
If I rightly understand the position, it would be this. The right way for the magistrate and for the jury to direct themselves would be to say, " There is no must about this. You may draw that inference, but there is no must. You are only entitled to draw the inference from those facts that the seller intended to corrupt children or young persons if, on the whole of the evidence, that seems to you to be the right inference. If, on the whole of the evidence, it is in doubt whether or not that is the right inference, then you ought not to draw it."
It seems to us that one would get to the position that although the prosecution could prove the nature of the work, the horror comic, and, in the case of the retailer, the sale of it, it might be impossible for the prosecution to establish intent. If, for instance, the accused said, " This only came in yesterday in a bundle. I did not know what was in it," one could not then infer the intent. It would be very difficult to answer him because the prosecution would have no material for answering the defence of " I did not know " or " I did not intend," despite the publication of the work, which might well be proved.
It also seems to us that, by that method, one might well be setting a premium on ignorance, as it were, making it much to the advantage of the retailer not to know the content of his stock so that no one could infer the intent or the

knowledge against him. We feel that those are serious practical objections to approaching the problem in this way if we are seeking, as we all are, to stamp out the horror comic.
I only indicate these practical difficulties, because, as I have said, we will certainly look at the matter again—on the case put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to see if we can find some way of getting round the difficulty. On the face of it, however, it looks to us to be placing upon the prosecution the burden of proving the intent or the knowledge, thus making it practically impossible in a very large number of cases to secure conviction, which is something that would defeat the general purpose of us all.
6.15 p.m.
If we were talking about some other topic, for instance that of obscene publications, which keeps cropping up in this discussion, the position might well be quite different, because there is there a conflict between two public interests—on the one hand, the interest of society in desiring to have complete creative scope in literature, art and the like, a matter in which society has an interest, and, on the other hand, the interest of society in seeing that its children and young persons are not needlessly exposed to corruption.
I appreciate the violence of that conflict in relation to obscene literature in general, but I submit that it does not really arise in relation to the kind of publications dealt with in this Bill and which are not likely to be serious works of art and literature. With the undertaking to look at the matter again, but without, of necessity, making any promise because of the practical difficulties which we think exist, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Committee would probably agree that, though the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has not been able to accept the Amendment, he has given it a very sympathetic reception. I think one can say that had we received such a sympathetic reception in regard to Amendments moved during the earlier stage of the Bill, we might have got along much better.
I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt in a very interesting way


with the distinction which exists between the publications which we are considering and the general field of literature. I was glad that he mentioned that distinction, because I thought that the Government were perhaps getting into a slightly unfortunate position so far as this wider field was concerned. If one is going to say that one cannot get any sort of conviction, or have any sort of valid law at all, unless one is going to make a test of what is objectionable, the old Hickling test, then it is not at all clear—that is what the Home Secretary seemed to say last Thursday—how one can ever get a reform of the law relating to wider questions.
I understood the Attorney-General to say that any retreat from the Hickling judgment would make convictions more difficult. But in the case of the horror comics and of this Bill we shall not so retreat, because we do not think that there are any conflicting considerations. In the wider case, we might be prepared to retreat because we think that there are considerations on both sides, and one has to weigh the one against the other. This is perfectly acceptable if, of course, one accepts the view that it is inconceivable that under this Bill publications of merit could ever be involved. That is one of the difficulties which we are up against. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I do not think that we would wish to press this Amendment very much further.
The only other point I should like to mention is that the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself almost entirely to the first Amendment, although we have been taking three Amendments together. The last of the three, which seeks to insert, after "hire":
 with intent to corrupt children or young persons, or who is reckless as to its having this effect
might make it slightly easier for the prosecution to get a conviction.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I should like to throw out another suggestion upon the question of intent. There are two places at which the requirement as to intention can be inserted in the Bill. We can say that a person who prints or publishes " with intent " shall be guilty of an offence or, in Clause 1, we can link the question of intention with the person into whose

hands the publication falls, so that the relevant words are:
 in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it is intended to fall.
I believe that the Government are clearly right in opposing its insertion in Clause 2. If we did so, a retailer would have the defence which the Solicitor-General mentioned, namely, that he had only just received the publication and had not read it. I regard it as impracticable to introduce the question of intention into Clause 2, but I do not believe that to be the case with regard to Clause 1. The Government have offered to consider whether they can insert some safeguard in relation to intent without at the same time creating a loophole, and I merely draw attention to the fact that, at the moment, anything which might fall into the hands of a child can be covered by the Bill.
Under the terms of the Bill, Goya's " Los Caprichos " is clearly a horror comic and would be covered by the Bill.

Dr. King: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member indicates that it would not, but I respectfully take another view and say that the horrible details of the picture might well affect young children.
If we create a broad enough basis in order to show that this kind of literature is intended to fall into the hands of children, or is reasonably likely to do so, we are going a long way towards meeting the purpose of the Amendment without at the same time removing the necessary safeguards. It is for that reason that I certainly oppose such an amendment of Clause 2, but I invite the Government to consider Clause 1 and to see whether it would not assist the purpose of the Bill to insert the words " is intended to fall " in place of " might fall."

Mr. James MacColl: I was rising to commend the speech made in our discussion of a previous Amendment in Clause 1 by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and to apply it to this discussion. I am now rather embarrassed by the fact that the hon. Member has apparently withdrawn his proposal and has not applied it to this Amendment.
I should have hoped that the solution to this very real difficulty would have


been the changing of the burden of proof. I do not go the whole way with my right hon. and learned Friend in his argument. I think that it would put much too strong a burden upon the prosecution to ask it to dig into the mind of the seller or the hirer of a horror comic in order to try to find out how far he was aware of the difficulties and dangers involved, and how far he had considered whether or not it was the type of publication likely to attract children, and so on. That would appear to be going much too far in protecting a dealer in this type of literature.
As the Solicitor-General said, if the definition of intention includes the assertion that one intends the natural consequences of what one does, it may be that the burden of proof is not as strong as it seems to be to the layman. If one produces a horror comic and says, " Here is something which quite obviously must be intended to attract children and be read by children; it has gone out of its way, designedly, to catch their eye, through the type of cover it has, and so on," one might persuade a bench of magistrates to come to the conclusion that the intention was to corrupt children.
I find it rather difficult to follow the different directions given by my right hon. and learned Friend and the learned Solicitor-General about the law of intention, but if the law is as I have just suggested, the risks of the Amendment destroying the Bill would not be as great as they might otherwise seem to be to the layman.
I should have thought that the Government could safely go as far as putting upon somebody possessing this type of literature the burden of convincing the jury or the magistrate that he had some other object in having this literature upon his premises than selling it in such circumstances that it was likely to reach children. To put the onus any less strongly than that might considerably weaken the Bill. The prosecution already has to establish a reasonable amount. It has to establish that the person accused had the work in his possession for the purpose of selling it or letting it on hire, and that he is in fact dealing in this kind of matter. That, in itself, is sometimes quite difficult to establish. To put upon the prosecution the responsibility of establishing the intention with which such a person was dealing with it would seriously weaken the Bill, and the Government would be most unwise to accept such an Amendment.
I hope that, as a result of his consideration of the question, the Solicitor-General will be able to find some way in which the burden of proof shall first be placed upon the prosecution, to show that the person possessing the publication had the intention of selling it or hiring it out, and shall then be shifted on to the possessor of the publication, to show that he had some other purpose, of such a character that he would not reasonably have thought that it was likely to reach children or young persons.
It is unfortunate that we have to have such a Bill as this, but we must face the fact, fairly and squarely, that horror comics are pernicious and might have a corrupting influence upon children. In those circumstances, people who traffic in them for their own profit do so at their peril, and it must be accepted that they do so at their own peril. It is up to them to establish a very good reason for their having such literature in their shops if they are to escape prosecution under the Bill.

Mr. Raymond Gower: My hon. and learned Friend adduced a very good reason why the wording of the Amendment should not be accepted, but his example also revealed the danger of the present wording. It might be possible for a fairly large retailer to receive a fairly large order and, under the present wording, to be guilty of an offence—and, presumably, subject to a very substantial penalty—if that order contained any of the literature which the Bill is designed to cover. Although the wording might not lead to an unjust prosecution of the printer or the publisher of such literature, it might do so in the case of the retailer, if he is included.

6.30 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: The Solicitor-General has given me a very courteous and careful answer, and the debate has brought to light what the difficulties are both against the Amendment and in its favour. If it lies in my mouth to do so, I, having moved the Amendment—which was not in my name—on the implied invitation of my hon. Friend, should like, in view of the Solicitor-General's answer, to withdraw it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from " months " to the end of line 21 and to add:
 for the first offence, a term of twelve months for the second offence and a term of two years for each subsequent offence.
The Amendment draws attention to two aspects of the penalty which is to be inflicted for this offence. Every member of the Committee agrees that publication of horror comics is an evil which should be stamped out. I want to be brief, so I will not indulge in the old controversy as to whether punishment is a deterrent or not; sufficient to say that I take the view that the penalty in the Bill is not nearly severe enough for the first offence.
My hon. Friends and I recognise that to a certain extent this is a matter of trial and error. We have not proposed to increase the penalty of imprisonment, namely, four months, but we feel that to give the option of imposing a fine weakens the penalty very considerably. As the penalty stands at present, we submit that there is a strong case for it to be imprisonment only.
There is one other aspect of this matter which I submit with respeet to my right hon. and gallant Friend. I understand that the majority of, if not all, the people who indulge in the publication of these pernicious horror comics have very substantial financial resources. It may well be that they would get off with a fine, and that a fine of £100 would be nothing to them. I recognise that there are arguments—and I appreciate them all—which my right hon. and gallant Friend may put forward why the option should be maintained in the Bill, but I noted with surprise that there is no penalty for the second and subsequent offences.
As I have said, a person may be fined £100, which is nothing to him at all, and start again. Therefore, it was with the object of drawing specific attention to this absence of penalty for subsequent offences that my hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment. We recognise that it is unlikely that my right hon. and gallant Friend will alter the penalty as it stands in the Bill, but I would respectfully ask him to give consideration to more severe penalties for second and subsequent offences.

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) has said why we have framed this Amendment. One hesitates to put Amendments of this kind on the Notice Paper, but I think that, from what has been said in the debates, it is quite clear that Parliament means business in this particular case.
The intention of my hon. Friend and myself in tabling the Amendment was partly to show that by the punishment expressed in the Bill Parliament does, in fact, mean business. We recognise that there are some teeth in the Bill, but we believe that they are too small. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend, even if he does have some opposition to the first proposal, to do something, if necessary at a later stage, which will give a cumulative effect to the penalty which may be administered for second and third offences.

Mr. Paul Williams: I should like to support the plea, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend may not be able to accept the exact words and penalties stated in the Amendment, but I reinforce what has been said and I hope the Government will be able to accept, by implication, that there should be increased penalties and increased punishment for second and subsequent offences. That is, to my mind, the main object of the Amendment.
It can be said that the penalties stated in the Amendment are rather severe, but this is a particularly nauseating trade with which we are dealing, and those who have put their names to this Amendment feel that it is worth while that there should be not only teeth in the Bill but that the teeth should be sharp enough and big enough.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I agree with much that my hon. Friends have said. I am sure we all feel that the strongest penalties are required in a Bill of this kind, so far as they apply to those who deliberately publish, produce or sell works of this nature. I hope, however, that my right hon. and gallant Friend will think well before he accepts an Amendment to take out of the Bill the option of


a fine, when we bear in mind that in the last Amendment we were discussing the possibility of convictions against people who, although they had committed an offence under the Bill were entirely innocent of any intention to do so.
That is a possibility which exists under the Bill as it stands. It would be rather hard if there were no option for the magistrates or courts to impose a fine in the case where that was so, as distinct from the case in which intent was clearly evident. I hope that the option of a fine will not be removed, but I support the Amendment so far as the penalties for second and subsequent offences are concerned.

Mr. Ede: I think I have given proof that I detest these offences as much as anyone in the Committee. I cannot, however, support the Amendment. My view is that if we make penalties too severe, so that juries are apt to regard them as too severe, they become very reluctant to convict.
To give an example, I am sure that one of the difficulties about getting convictions for driving under the influence of drink is the fear on the part of juries that if they convict a man for this offence he may be sent to prison. They object to sending middle-class people to prison—[Laughter.] Oh, yes. The only people who used to be charged with being drunk in charge of vehicles were carters who were in charge of horses and carts. There was no difficulty about getting convictions, no difficulty in getting doctors to say that they were drunk; but as soon as middle-class people came in, the doctors did not know what " drunk " meant. So the law had to be revised. I do not want to go further on that I give that as an illustration that if we make the penalties too severe we may defeat the very object that we have in view.
My own view is that the penalties in the Bill are quite sufficient to deter people. I think that they are also quite sufficient punishment in retribution where an offence has been committed and a conviction has been obtained.
The possibility of incurring a penalty of four months' imprisonment for a second or third offence will be a sufficient deterrent for a middle-class man or shopkeeper who has already offended the first time.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In spite of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) is one of my constituents, I must tell him that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
The effect of it would be to make imprisonment the only penalty for an offence under the Bill and to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for second and subsequent offences very substantially indeed. There may be cases—indeed, a number of them were considered during the discussion on the last Amendment—involving retail sales in which it would be quite inappropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment. The alternative remedy of a fine should be available to the court.
The proposed increases of the maximum terms of imprisonment for second and subsequent offences are out of all relation to the offence. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) drew attention to the effect of making penalties too great for the crime, and I agree with what he said. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I do not regard my hon. Friend's reply as satisfactory, but as he is my Member for Parliament, and a very good one too, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to add:
Provided that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if such printing, selling or letting on hire was for the public good, being necessary or advantageous to religion or morality, to the advancement of knowledge, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art, or education or otherwise.

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take into consideration at the same time the next Amendment, in almost similar terms, in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Jenkins: As you have indicated, Sir Charles, the second Amendment is a slight variation of the first. In the course of my argument I will try to indicate the differences between the two and explain why we are putting them forward as alternatives.
The Amendment I have moved offers the possibility of rebuttal of a charge on the ground that, despite certain other things which may have been said about a publication, one of the things set out in the Amendment can be put forward in its favour, and that the publication is objectively for the public good in one of a number of specified ways. The second Amendment offers the possibility of rebuttal on the ground that the publication is subjectively for the public good in one of the same variety of ways; in other words, that the person who had put the publication forward thought that it was for the public good.
The stronger of these Amendments is the first. It is the more favourable to the Government and creates less difficulty in getting convictions. I seriously suggest, subject to the usual considerations that the wording might not be very good or exactly as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would like it, that the Government ought to look at the Amendment very favourably. Particularly is this so if the Government are anxious, as the Solicitor-General indicated in his speech on the last Amendment but one, to consider the question of intention in as liberal a way as possible without putting themselves in the position that the Bill does not do its job because it becomes impossible to obtain convictions under it.
If it is the case, as the Home Secretary has consistently argued, that the only object of the Bill is to catch horror comics and that there is no possibility of a prosecution being started against any publication other than one genuinely falling with the definition of horror comic, because of the need for the Attorney-General's fiat, there is nothing which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can possibly lose by accepting the Amendment. It may mean that publications against which the Government wish to get a conviction and which might be shown to the satisfaction of the court to have corrupting effects in certain circumstances upon certain individuals, are none the less for the public good, and that the Amendment would cut the ground from under a great many of the arguments which the Minister has put before us. Nevertheless, I hope that he can see his way to accepting the Amendment, when some of the doubts which we have felt about the Bill would be removed.
We should have no difficulty about additional burden of proof being placed upon the prosecution. The Amendment would not open a loophole in the Bill. We have only the possibility that people who are proceeded against on a criminal charge would have a ground of rebuttal if they were able to produce evidence that there was merit of the sort described in the Amendment. If the Government are proceeding only against worthless publications, there is nothing to be said against their accepting the Amendment. It would do a good deal to remove our doubts about the Bill. I hope that, after a long period of stonewalling, the Government will be able to give a sympathetic answer on the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: This Amendment is one of the acid tests of the Bill. I did not listen to, but I read with very great interest, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) on the Second Reading. It was a speech of very great ability, and my hon. Friend did a great service to the House in making it. I have listened to certain of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), and on the whole I agree that this is a useful Bill which we ought to pass.
I do not believe that it contains all the dangers that my hon. Friend has indicated. It is right that we should make clear what is implicit in the observations which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made at an earlier stage about some other Bill, to which we might not be in order now in referring, and which he said might pass in a hundred years' time. Why not? These are dangerous waters in which Parliament seeks to navigate. Is there not, therefore, all the greater need to see that the nearer waters are navigable? Ought we not to test the Bill on those lines?
I want to put what I think is not a fanciful fear and not a fanciful objection. In considering this matter we have to bear in mind the history of the past and the fact that whenever Parliament has declared its intentions on these matters, those intentions have nearly always failed to be carried out. These are genuine fears. I do not think I am


putting a fanciful objection at all when I recall that under nearly all Statutes limiting seditious literature, for example, peace propaganda has often been the single object of attack, and, in times of emergency, documents which were normally accepted as reasonable have been subject to successful prosecution.
I fear that if there were at present a very able peace organisation which was anxious to call attention in pictorial form to the dangers of the situation today, and if that peace organisation produced a pamphlet which dealt with the news which we have today of the possible detonation of atomic bombs high in the air, of the destruction of pilots, of the boiling of their blood, of the last decision of the pilot to fly down and release his deadly load on the town below; then, although it was a genuine peace organisation, genuinely anxious to call attention to something which it thought a grave international crime, in times of controversy and difficulty, the sort of times in which emergency regulations arise—for, as George Bernard Shaw said, Britain always suspends the Habeas Corpus Act the moment it is necessary—under the wording of the Bill prosecutions might be successfully brought in that period of hysteria.
It would be improper, Sir Charles, for me to call attention to a certain new Clause on the Notice Paper, but one of our difficulties in dealing with a very small Bill to which there are a large number of Amendments is that we have to have in mind what might happen. It seems to me that in this Amendment there is a perfectly reasonable protection, a perfectly safe protection, a protection not capable of being abused, which the Government ought to accept and incorporate in the Bill.
If we refer to our previous experience in these matters and look at what happened in the realm of religion, for example, we remember that Shelley was condemned throughout his life for atheism on the strength of a mild philosophical pamphlet which would hardly attract attention today, the title of which was suggested by Jefferson Hogg, and which did not deal with atheism at all. He was a great poet who preached a humanitarian religion and who, in one of his greatest poems, called attention not merely to that point but to some of our

difficulties today. He wrote, in " Adonais ":
…he is not dead, he doth not sleep—He hath awakened from the dream of life—'Tis we, who lost in stormy visions, keep With phantoms an unprofitable strife, And in mad trance, strike with our spirit's knife
Invulnerable nothings.—We decay
Like corpses in a charnel; fear and grief Convulse us and consume us day by day,
And cold hopes swarm like worms within
our living clay.
He might well have been describing the situation in the Committee today and our reactions to this legislation and the influence of events, but Shelley remained condemned all his life because of this allegation of atheism. Many of us recall the comment of his widow when she was sending her son to school and someone said, " Send him to a school where he can think for himself "; and she replied, " God forgive him. Send him somewhere where he will think like other people." She said that because she had endured the horrors—and the happiness, but the doubts and difficulties, too—of living with someone who thought for himself.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Hale: I did not want to develop this point at all, Sir Charles, but we are referring to science, morals, education, and the arts and literature, and the difficulty is that we are endeavouring to apply aesthetic tests; and aesthetic things can be tested only by aesthetic means and examined only by aesthetic experts—if there are such people; I do not know.
I am utterly incompetent to talk with knowledge on these matters, but we are in the realm of art and when we are dealing with pictorial art we must remember the revulsion which Ruskin felt for the beauties of Whistler. We recall the trial in which the judge wanted to know whether these were men on the bridge, whether that was the bridge and this was the river; and the intelligent juryman wanted to know why the river was flowing over the bridge and was told that if he turned it the right way up it would not.
These things have happened in this sphere. In the realm of music there was an organisation of young intellectuals as recently as 1914 who protested against melody in music and wanted to introduce cacophony. Although the movement did not live and they did not exist for long, their efforts proliferated and they affect


almost every human ear drum today. The Committee will remember that the leader of the movement spent his Saturday afternoons cycling along French lanes firing his revolver at the sky. When asked for an explanation he said that he was making a strictly formal protest against the beastly row which the nightingales were making.
These are not normal views, but they were the views held by the Dadoists, who claimed to have some authority in art at that time. Perhaps I may say, humbly, and, I hope, with due reticence, that although I appreciate things which Ruskin could not appreciate, I completely fail to appreciate some of the major examples of modern art. I cannot derive full spiritual food and comfort from those brilliant examples in which blocks of stone are turned by modern sculptors into a form of art which displays all the deepest symbolism of Euclid and the exquisite curves of a lavatory seat. But there it is, and those are problems on which it is as well that we should have expert advice and should have expert knowledge and on which it is as well that the defence should be able to put its case.
I have said that, in my view, this is a useful Bill and I do not want for a moment to frustrate it. All the people in my constituency who are concerned with juvenile welfare believe that this Bill should be passed. As far as I am concerned, that is good enough for me. But they would not wish us to spare an effort to provide a useful safeguard against the possibility of abuse in times of emergency or difficulty. I should be quite content to put it like that and to urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to adopt the Amendment.
I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at all. In my view, if we find right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite engaged in something useful, however small, it is to be applauded. They have been engaged for so long in works of destruction that when they are on constructive work, even if the superstructure appears to be comparatively negligible, it is not a matter which we should disregard or about which we should appear cynical or critical. I have never concealed that in my view, in the light of current events and of contemporary

events, this is a utilisation of time which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could perhaps spend better on Civil Defence or something else; but it would not be right for me to go into that now.
What we are saying tonight is that here is a chance to do something for the protection of the juveniles of the country, and, in the main, I support it. Maybe in later years, if history takes its course, appropriate recognition will be made of our labours today. It may be that, when London has disappeared and is being rebuilt Phoenix-like on the ashes of the old, an historian of the future will pay tribute to our modest labours today and do justice to what Parliament has done—and where could it better be done than as an epitaph of one of the victims which, in years to come, may well be expressed in some such words as these:
 Crippled, stunted, deformed and misshapen, he Dropped septic from a radio-active womb, Survived awhile and perished miserably In London's thermo-nuclear hecatomb, Yet need we not deplore too readily The tragedy of his final fate atomic, From one contamination he lived free, Parliament saved him from the horror comic.

7.0 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I had a feeling that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) hoped to make that speech at some stage of this Bill. I thought it was significant that neither he nor the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) gave any example of how this proviso would work. It seems to me that the proviso would strike at the root of the Bill. I only saw it on the Order Paper a moment ago, and perhaps I might be forgiven for not having given it the profound thought I should have given it; but I can see that it puts the arguments between those who advocate freedom and those who advocate control on a knifeedge.
The first Amendment has some saving grace, in that the defendant could not get away with an easy plea; those prosecuting him have only to show that in their opinion the publication is not for the public good for a conviction to be secured. But the second proviso is very much more dangerous, because it is not easy to prove what a man's intention is. Surely there is always a defence lying for the person who is prosecuted under


that proviso. However horrifying the cartoon or comment he has produced, he can always say under this proviso, " I did it in order to warn people against some worse danger, or worse situation, or a graver anxiety." Under this proviso he can always get away by saying, " I did it to show that ' the commission of crimes ' does not pay. I did it to show that ' acts of violence or cruelty ' do not pay. I did it in order to show that
'incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;'
can never be committed with any ultimate salvation to the person who committed them."
Even in the most fantastic and horrifying of all comics—those depicting spacemen coming down and committing rapine, arson and things of that kind—the individual charged under this proviso could always say, " I did it in order to create a state of public opinion in favour of "—what shall we say?—" mobilising the Air Force against the deadly dangers that are coming to us from cosmic spheres." Any kind of argument could be produced to show that he knew there was some ultimate good in his plea.
I do very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will not accept either of these two provisos, but will stand fast on the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Blackburn: I think we are inclined at times to forget that it is horror comics with which we are dealing and that, according to the definition, it could be a work which
 would tend to corrupt a child or young person.
I should like someone supporting the Amendment to say how such a work could possibly be
 for the public good, being necessary or advantageous to religion or morality, to the advancement of knowledge, to the administration of justice, the pursuit of science, literature, art, or education or otherwise.
That seems the whole point of the argument going forward. If one of the signatories to the second Amendment we are discussing would explain how that could possibly come about and that a work which would corrupt a child would be advantageous in that way it would be helpful to the Committee.

Dr. King: I had hoped the Government would say that they would look at the first Amendment sympathetically. What has

defeated the Committee has been the fears of those who think that under this Bill, which is aimed at one specific evil, we should open the door for Government control of thought in any way. I would hope that the Government would accept either the first Amendment in the form in which it stands, or provide some similar form so that we may reassure the people of Britain that we are simply out to destroy an evil which all of us know. Even those who have been fighting this Bill bit by bit through the House share with us the view that the evil is an evil.
I think we can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that, even without this proviso, musical cacophony does not come within the ambit of the Bill. If he looks at the Clause he will find that we are talking about pictures. By no means could the peace propaganda which he envisaged as coming under the terms of the Bill be prosecuted, because by no means could that peace propaganda be said to be inciting to violence.

Mr. Hale: This is most important. There was a whole series of cases during the First World War in which precisely that was done, and there was a whole series of cases in America also. It was done time after time. The pacifist propaganda of 1913 became criminal stuff in 1914.

Dr. King: No one questions the changing of a political view. I am talking about the words of the Bill, which we are trying to get through. Having said that I believe that all the safeguards we need are to be found in Clause 1, I think we could underwrite and make quite clear, not only to members of the Committee, but the whole British public, that we seek to have no tampering with artistic freedom, religious freedom, or scientific freedom. I know that lawyers who will be engaged by the crime comic syndicates are very clever, but I cannot imagine that any crime comic in the world could come under the description given in the Amendment, and I hope the Government will look at it very sympathetically.

Major Lloyd-George: I think the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) gave a very complete answer to this Amendment when he said that


we should remind ourselves of what the Bill aims to do. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) told us all sorts of things for which this Bill could be used. I think he said something about modern art, and something about a gentleman—I did not catch his name—who had gone out shooting at nightingales from a bicycle with a revolver. If that gentleman had been pictured as hitting one, the publication would be prosecuted under this Measure because it would tend to incite the child into whose hands the publication might fall to commit crime. There is an Amendment appearing later on the Paper, with which I have already announced the Government are sympathetic, in regard to the time limit of this Bill. That is the best safeguard the hon. Member could possibly have.
The two Amendments proposed to this Clause differ to this extent: one suggests that the action of the person concerned should be for the public good and the other that he intended that it should be for the public good. The object of the first Amendment is to enable a defendant to establish a defence that the work concerned served some useful social purpose, even though at the same time it might tend to corrupt children. If I remember aright in the Second Reading debate a great deal of reference was made—I think it was overdone, the fear was overdone—to this Bill attacking all sorts of things which would not be to the national interest. We heard about the " Rake's Progress " and other forms of art, and that if anyone wanted to publish a pamphlet about the horrors of Belsen in a magazine he would be liable to prosecution. I think that was grossly exaggerated.
Clause 1 is perfectly plain as to what it means. The work has to be all in pictures; that is the thing which matters. It does not have to be mainly in pictures, but all in pictures. The work must consist.
 wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures ";
the stories themselves are to be entirely in pictures. If such works as were mentioned during the Second Reading consisted
 wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures,
it is most unlikely that proceedings would be taken against works of that sort. I

think everyone in the Committee knows that to be so. There is something in the point that what the Minister says is his intention is not always satisfactory. There will be another Minister at some time and, therefore, the intention of the present Minister is not sufficient. I have always accepted that point of view, and I have made that point myself very often.
Leaving that out, however, surely the great safeguard is that proceedings would not be initiated in England and Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General, a provision which, as I have indicated, I am prepared to accept. That is a sufficient safeguard to protect works of this sort which have been brought into the ambit of the Bill.
In any case, the Amendment is not sufficiently precise. The words
 advantageous to…morality, to the advancement of knowledge 
would give a defendant a very wide scope for his defence. The Amendment also refers to the pursuit of literature and art. I suppose that that is intended to protect works of literary and artistic merit, but I suggest that reference to literature is hardly appropriate in the context of the Bill, which has nothing whatever to do with literature in any shape or form.
As I said on Second Reading, it is dangerous to suggest that the Bill will have any effect on any literature. There is, however, one other thing. It would not be right that publications of the kind that we have in mind should be excused because of the artistic merit of the pictures. Indeed, I would go further and say that the greater the merit of the pictures the more the horror comic would be a horror comic, because the more real it is the more terrible I think it would be. The very fact that they are skilfully drawn would tend to make them even more effective from the point of view of corruption.
People who are responsible for publications of that kind would not be slow to take advantage of any defence, particularly of this sort, as is shown by the frequent use of the now common words " art studies " to refer to photographs and pictures. To put it quite mildly, I would not say that they were always entirely aesthetic. If any defence of this kind were required, it should be restricted to publications which can be shown to the satisfaction of the court to be necessary


to particular purposes, which ought to be specified, and could be specified, as exactly as possible. I do not think that it would be possible to put this proposal into the Bill.
I do not want to deal with the question of intention. If somebody said that he intended the work to be for the public good, that would make it even more difficult to get a conviction. So many of the Amendments so far—I say this not from any feeling of irritation—although they were not so intended, would have made the Bill unworkable. I readily admit that that was not the intention behind them, but anyone who cares to look through all the Amendments so far, particularly on Clause 1, will realise that had they all been carried the Bill would not have been worth proceeding with.
I beg hon. Members to remember that this is a Bill to do one specific thing. The very fact of its presentation in the House has had a very good effect already, and I think that the determination of the House to see the Bill through will have the effect that we want. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will not ask me to accept the two Amendments, because I cannot do so.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: If it is possible to tell whether a thing tends to corrupt a child, surely it is possible to say whether it is for the public good. Neither of these tests is an objective test, and in neither case can one get a complete or absolute answer. In both cases one can only be on the whole correct in one's judgment. Therefore, any criticism which is levelled against the Bill can equally be developed against my hon. Friend's Amendment; but if those criticisms which are levelled against the Bill are resisted, so by the same reasoning can any criticism against my hon. Friend's Amendment be resisted, for in both cases we are asking that something which is not absolutely ascertainable should be considered.
In the case of the Bill itself, it is asked that it should be considered whether something has tended to corrupt a child. In the case of my hon. Friend's Amendment, we are asking that it should be considered whether it is for the public good. If we can tell one of those things, we can tell the other.
The Home Secretary went on to say that the latter part of the Amendment would be difficult to implement and that he did not like its choice of words. I do not think that my hon. Friend would stick rigidly to the choice of all those words. The Home Secretary has asked us repeatedly to take in good faith what he means and to assume that his meaning will not be abused. That is all that my hon. Friend asks in relation to his Amendment, and if the Home Secretary cares to alter its wording to get the sense of what he knows my hon. Friend means we would be satisfied.
Next it was argued that the Amendment would not make any difference anyway; that it would not do any harm and it would not do any good. if it would not do any harm, let us have it in the Bill, because it is thought by some people that it would do some good. It might be feebleminded of those people to think so, but nevertheless the state of their minds is as much a fact as the state of mind of any child who might be corrupted.
As it is so widely feared that the Bill which has been brought in with the best possible intentions—I support its general aim; I think it is correct to try to deal with horror comics—in bad hands or if used badly, could do some harm, and as the Amendment would clearly prevent it from ever being able to do so, then as the Amendment itself would not do any harm, I think that the Home Secretary might accept it.

Mr. Ede: I think that the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) reduces the Amendment to appropriate absurdity. We are told that a court would find at the same time that a publication would corrupt a child and yet be for the public good. I cannot believe that even with the ludicrous things which some of the higher courts do on occasions, any magistrates' court would commit such an absurdity as that; and any chairman of quarter sessions who so summed up that a jury at quarter sessions would say the same thing ought, I think, to be removed at the next annual election.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Two or three days ago, together, I imagine, with most hon. Members of the Committee, I received a publication from the Egyptian Embassy entitled


" Israel's Crimes at Gaza." It consisted of 24 pages of atrocities, showing corpses on the ground and blood coming from them, and mothers with young children who had been murdered, allegedly, by the Israeli forces at Gaza.
That was a document which might easily have fallen into the hands of my children. Like others who have young children, I give odd bits of paper to my small child to cut out and colour, and a lot of it comes from my correspondence. I admit that this is in a sense an absurdity, but it would be a great mistake if the House of Commons, in considering this Bill, which I wholly support and which I wish to see enacted, ignored the extent to which horror is publicly and openly used by Governments to foster political purposes.
The publication of the information about the treatment of British prisoners of war in Korea was a deliberate—and I do not say wrong—use of a horror story by the British Government to rebut Chinese assertions and to alert people to the dangers of the Chinese Communist forces. Similarly, of course, the Mau Mau oaths were published, admittedly privately as a secret appendix, when the Parliamentary Delegation came back from Kenya. Then there were the Nuremburg trials. There are plenty of examples of the deliberate use of horror by Governments for their own purposes.
Similarly and increasingly, partly because of the horror comic and partly for other reasons, bodies which wish to convince people are moving away from the written word to the pictorial representation. The election address of the London County Council which was recently pushed through my letter box by the organisation of the Party opposite included strip cartoons designed to show the waste of Labour members, and so on. I think it not inconceivable that if this Clause is allowed to go through without the man being allowed to plead public good, there is a possibility not only that the Egyptian Embassy will have to pay a fine of £100 for their recent publication, but also that a certain form of semi-legitimate political propaganda may be eliminated.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend, who said that if a man can prove that it was not his intent to corrupt that is

enough. I cannot agree with the second Amendment, but I believe that the first Amendment, in which a man is allowed to assert that it was for the public good and that the court is to decide, will provide some safeguards against dangers of this kind. If the court decides that it is not for the public good, the argument can be carried on further and Parliament, if it sees necessary, will be able to amend the law.
Along with many other hon Members on both sides of the Committee who wish this Bill well, I would like some assurance of that kind from the Home Secretary.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I found the observations of the Home Secretary entirely unconvincing and I hope that my hon. Friend will carry this matter to a Division. There was one argument used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about which I must protest. If I may paraphrase his remarks, he seemed to me to be saying, " It does not matter very much what is in this Bill or in this Clause because, later, I shall accept an Amendment whereby there will be no prosecution under this Bill except with the consent of the Attorney-General."
That is a dangerous argument to put before the Committee and I think the Solicitor-General will agree that, even though a Bill contains such a proviso, or even though the Minister in charge says he will, at a later stage, accept an Amendment to that effect, it does not in itself, and ought not, to absolve us in this Committee from our duty of seeing that this Bill makes sense. It is wrong that we should say, " It does not matter very much whether good works of literature or works conducive to the public good may technically fall under this Bill because, even if they do, people need not worry because they will not be prosecuted."

Major Lloyd-George: No work of literature can fall under this Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: The Amendment reads:
…being considered necessary or advantageous to religion or morality….
It is no use the Home Secretary saying that people who may conscientiously want to produce works which they think are necessary or advantageous to religion or moralty need not be afraid because, he says, there will be no prosecution except with the consent of the Attorney-General.
Fundamentally, it is wrong in constitutional principle that this kind of argument should be used to prevent us from seeing that the language of the Bill is confined to the evil at which it is aimed. May I give two illustrations of the kind of absurdity which I think will be produced unless we have this Amendment. Suppose we were on the eve of another war with nuclear weapons, which God forbid. I have no doubt there would then be all kinds of patriotic documents, recruiting posters, and other works designed to encourage young persons to use acts of violence. Because that is what happens in wartime, people are recruited into the Armed Forces for the express purpose of using acts of violence against the enemy. There is no question that publications of such a kind would be exposed to any fear of prosecution by the Attorney-General.
But, Sir Charles, there would also be another kind of publication. There would be publications produced by pacifists and I am not a pacifist—designed to prevent people from going to war. There would be pictorial illustrations in these leaflets showing the horrors of war designed for the opposite purpose.
I am not arguing the merits of it. I am merely saying that one kind of publication may be exposed to prosecution because the Attorney-General of the day might say it was inimical and tending to corrupt young people, whereas I would have thought that in the case of people who have the right, in those circumstances, to put forward the kind of propaganda in which they believe—and, if they conscientiously believe that it is the best kind of propaganda in the public good, ought to be entitled to put forward that defence—it would then be for the courts to say whether they were right or wrong.
For those reasons, as well as those given by my hon. Friends, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will press his Amendment to a Division, not necessarily relying on the precise words he used, but in the hope that the Home Secretary will then amend them in such a way as to bring the Clause more into consistency with the ideas which have been expressed.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and the Home Secretary joined in saying that those who moved and supported this Amendment seemed to forget that this Bill was about horror comics. Of course it is primarily about horror comics, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that many times. He need not worry about this Amendment so far as the mass of publications is concerned—I will not say literature—because the Home Secretary objects to the word; but there are possible marginal cases and it is reasonable that there should be this possibility of rebuttal in other ways.
My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) thought that this was a silly Amendment because it was absurd, they said, that something which could corrupt children might still be for the public good—

Mr. Hale: "Tend to corrupt."

Mr. Jenkins: But there is a long history, not under this Bill but under the previous Act, about publications which have been held at various times to tend to corrupt the generality of people in this and other countries, including publications of great literary merit. So, things which might not corrupt people as a whole might be held, still more strongly, to corrupt some people. Therefore, to suggest that there could be no possibility of conflict is to ignore the history of law on the subject.
The Solicitor-General, who said there was a possible conflict, showed earlier an awareness of the very point which my hon. and right hon. Friend completely denied. As I said in moving this Amendment, it is a moderate one and it would put a safeguard into the Bill. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is unsympathetic, and I hope that my hon. Friends will press it to a Division.
Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 63, Noes 191.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[9.57 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fell, A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Finlay, Graeme


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Carr, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Armstrong, C. W.
Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cole, Norman
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Cooper Key, E. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe&Lonsdale)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. o. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Crouch, R. F.
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Bevies, J. R. (Toxteth)
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Grimond, J.


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Black, C. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boyle. Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maccesfd)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bullard, D. G.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hay, John


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to add:
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not, in England or Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General.
It was indicated earlier in our debates that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to accept the Amendment. Consequently, I move it formally.

Major Lloyd-George: My right hon. and learned Friend indicated in the debate last week that we would accept the Amendment when we came to it, and I now formally announce that the Government accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

7.40 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have now passed the second Clause of the Bill, although that is not as much progress as the Government had hoped to make today. But it is about the time which I said last Thursday would be time for the changeover between this business and the next. I should like at the same time to give notice that we shall continue the Committee stage of the Bill tomorrow.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information and say when we will come to it tomorrow?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, after the other business announced.

Mr. Ede: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment as much this evening as I did on Thursday evening. I think that there has been a genuine effort today to get on with the Bill. There are certain things in the Bill which raise issues which hon. Members are bound very meticulously to examine in order to understand what they are doing. I hope, now that we have got through these two Clauses, that we shall be able so to move that neither of us will be disappointed.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I should like to ask the Leader of the House one question. I understand that discussion on the Bill will be resumed at the end of the other business already announced for tomorrow. A good deal of business for tomorrow has already been announced. Is it the intention to ask the House to suspend the Rule tomorrow?

Mr. Crookshank: We will have to wait and see. I cannot make a statement about that at the moment, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman studies tomorrow's business he will see that it is not quite so severe as it appears to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF FOOD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

7.43 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th March.
I hope that nobody will think I moved to report Progress in order to make a speech. I had to move this Motion in any case, and I hope to do so quite briefly. It is a curious fact that this is the third time in less than two years that I have stood at the Dispatch Box moving a draft Order in Council reorganising and amalgamating Departments. It is perhaps even stranger that in each case my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been one of the parties concerned. There were first the Departments of National Insurance and Pensions, then of Materials and the Board of Trade—he was then the Minister of State—and this time with Food and Agriculture, he has to be amalgamated with himself, if that is possible. I am quite certain that on consideration the House will think that this proposal is a wise move.
The question of the machinery of any Government is bound to be constantly under review by that Government, and more particularly under the consideration of the Prime Minister himself. From time to time there is bound to be a question whether the functions of a particular Department have so changed that other arrangements ought to be made for the discharge of public business. The object of the Order is to merge the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Food. The form that it takes is found in Paragraph 2 (1) dissolving the Ministry of Food and in consequence distributing its functions according to the provisions of the Order. In the Prime Minister's view that is now necessary.
If one looks back at the history of the Ministry of Food, it originated, of course, in what was called the Food Defence Plans Department before the war, with which a few present Members were then concerned. It afterwards became a full-blown Ministry, and in the course of time it took over a number of

the functions of the Board of Trade connected with food. It did its great work during the war with all the questions of procurement, allocation and rationing, and subsequently it had—and the remnants of the Ministry still have—functions which really appertain to carrying out the great Agriculture Act passed in the time of the Socialist Government.
It naturally became a very vast Department because of what it had to do. There 'was a peak-time staff of just over 44,000 persons. That is a tremendous number. I asked with what this number could be compared, and I was told that it equals the population of St. Albans or more 'topically, Gravesend. By October, 1951, when we came into office the peak figure had gone, but it was still a very large body of men and women, 27,000. In October, 1951, rationing was still in full swing—bacon, cheese, butter, eggs, chocolate, tea, sugar and meat. They all naturally required attention so long as rationing was the policy. The changes came, and by mid-summer last year rationing ended and so in October my Tight hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his announcement of the impending change in the status of the Ministry of Food, and at that time the staff had been reduced to just over 7,000.
By 1st March it stood at about 5,600. There has been a tremendous run-down of staff, due to a reduction in the importance of a great deal of the work the Department had to do and to the abolition of great sources of that work. When that happens to a Department there is always the question of how far it is reasonable to continue it as a separate entity. One has to have some consideration of the staff problems involved. It is no good, for example, keeping a large number of persons in what I might term a dead-end Department because its functions, and therefore its importance and position in the general administrative hierarchy, are diminishing all the time.
So it was decided and announced in October that the change would be made. When that was done my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), like many others in this country, being impressed by the fact that rationing had gone—and so many thought rationing was the big job which the Ministry of Food was still doing—not unnaturally asked, " Why have any


Ministry at all? What will be its job now that rationing has gone?" If hon. Members are curious on that point, I refer them to a reply given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster on 14th April last year.
The reply was given by the Parliamentary Secretary, who pointed out that among other things the Ministry of Food, as it then was, was responsible, for example, for the administration of Deficiency Payments Schemes under the Agriculture Act. That, I understand, involves the work of about 2,000 persons. There were various other things which I will not detail, except to mention those that will come back into the picture when I describe the allocation of work between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the new Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was told, among the remanet functions are questions arising from the International Sugar Agreement, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, International Wheat Agreements, bodies like the F.A.O., N.A.T.O. and others.
Those are a number of problems bound to be dealt with by somebody. The only question that remained was, by whom? Some might have thought, " Back to the Board of Trade," where a good many of these matters, or rather their pre-war equivalent, had originated; but my right hon. Friend decided, and as a result the Order comes before the House today, that it would he better to bring them all together under one Minister with the new designation of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that it would be wise for one person to have under his purview and to harmonise all the different problems which arise out of food. On the agricultural side there is, of course, production and all that part of the picture. On the fishery side there is the catching more than anything else and the problems arising from that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He will have a big job.

Mr. Crookshank: He always has a big job, but he is a big man. He will have to deal with various aspects of overseas supply, to keep in touch, as somebody has today—if it were not he it would be the Board of Trade—with the general problems of the food trade, and, of course, the consumers' interests.
We are quite satisfied, as his colleagues, that my right hon. Friend will be perfectly capable of doing that after the Order in Council is passed, just as he has been doing it in his double entity of Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister of Food for the last five months. He has been doing it already; it is only that instead of being two people he is being amalgamated into one. That is the only difference, as far as I can see, as a result of the Order in Council. I said that it was a difficult thing to consider, but that is what it amounts to.
There is one point which perhaps I should mention, because it is not in the Order but will have to be a subject of a subsequent order. That is the interest which the Ministry of Food has in the food and drugs legislation. What has been agreed, and what will afterwards come before the House in another order, is a division of responsibilities between the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend on the general basis that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have the primary responsibility for what one might call the hygiene problems, responsibilities for health, whereas my right hon. Friend the new Minister will be dealing with the regulations about the composition of food to safeguard health and to prevent fraud and the regulations about food labelling.
That is the general line of division which is envisaged. It does not come in the Order. I merely mention it in case somebody happened to ask why it was not there.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a new announcement. Does it mean that the whole of the work of the food hygiene division will go to the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. Friend can go into any details. The answer is that the two Ministers will report jointly; but he will be primarily responsible.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: This is a matter of very considerable importance—

Mr. Crookshank: It does not really arise in this Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I was about to make that remark myself.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. This is of some importance for the future debate. So far as we can see, the Order provides for all those functions automatically to go to the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, whatever future arrangements may be made, this is surely a matter which is before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understood the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, they will be the subject of another Order.

Mr. Crookshank: I thought it convenient to say that. If there are questions, so far as they are in order, my right hon. Friend can answer them. This will be done under a separate order. I merely mentioned it because I thought that its non-appearance in this Order might raise doubts in various parts of the House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that we ought to settle now what it is permissible to discuss on the Order. It provides for the functions to be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture. Whatever future arrangements the Government may make, surely the matter is open to debate now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know the facts, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the food and drugs regulations will be subject to another order and that they are not subject to this one. If that is so, it would not be in order to debate them on this Order.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It might help if I were to remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in the Order there is a reference to the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, which is the Act with which we are concerned.—It is obvious from the Order—and up to now it seemed perfectly certain, because nothing else had been said-that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will in fact be implementing that Act and the regulations made under it. Therefore, I submit that it will be in order at least to make passing references to the fact that in our view what is proposed, as we understand it, would not be for the benefit of the people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would appear that passing references would be in order. I merely rose to say that it would be out of order on what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say about the details being in another Order.

Mr. John Strachey: If it was in order for the Minister to announce this transfer of functions to the Ministry of Health, then, with great respect, it must be in order for us to question him about it and to make references to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Possibly that might be in order so long as we do not go too far into detail.

Mr. Willey: Surely the position is that the Order transfers to the new Minister the food and drugs powers, but the right hon. Gentleman has forewarned us that he may have acted prematurely and that this will be rectified in due course.

Mr. Crookshank: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made the point clear myself. I can confirm that the Order transfers the function of the Ministry of Food to my right hon. Friend. I was indicating to the House that some of them were not going to stay there permanently but that they would move away from him under another order. Whether it is in order to discuss any part of that it is not for me to say, but I know that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to answer any questions which are in order.
The other major point is what happens about Scotland. Under the First Schedule certain functions are directly transferred to the Secretary of State, and in Part II of that Schedule there are some functions, not very numerous, which have to be dealt with jointly, because, broadly speaking, they are United Kingdom matters. For example, they include anything which might occur with regard to international agreements, and so on.
The title which is proposed for the new Minister—and which will be found in the Order—of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has no sinister meaning. It runs rather better with the words put in that order and does not mean that agriculture, fisheries or food have any particular precedence or importance in my right hon. Friend's view, the one with the other. It is the historic way of describing the Department, and we hope that it will be acceptable to the House and to all those who have to use a rather cumbrous terminology. That is almost—

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Food has to be grown before we can eat it.

Mr. Crookshank: That may be, but the Ministry of Agriculture was long established before the Ministry of Food came into the picture in 1939. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this draft Order as an improvement on the organisational problems of these two Departments.
I do not think that the House should take leave of the Ministry of Food without paying regard to and expressing its great appreciation for all those who have worked in it, whether as Ministers or civil servants: whether in London or the provinces, in Scotland or up and down the country. It is interesting to recall that the first Minister of Food was Mr. Speaker, and that during the existence of the Department many most competent Ministers, who made great reputations in their job, have held office. I do not exclude from that list my right hon. and gallant Friend the present Home Secretary—who was, in fact, the last Food Minister—and my right hon. Friend, who has been in the dual capacity for the last few months.
Though the work that had to be done was hard, and very often there were difficulties in the contacts which the officers in that Department had to make with the general public through all these years, everyone will recognise that we should thank them for their services; and whether they stay on in the new amalgamated Department, or find occupations elsewhere, we wish them well in the future. I am quite certain, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who instituted it is also quite certain, that the change is in the best interests of the economy in the public service and to the smooth working and handling of the problems with which my right hon. Friend will in future be concerned. I commend this draft Order in Council to the House and hope that it will be accepted.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought that the Lord Privy Seal, when he began, was treating this matter in too light-hearted a fashion. After all, we are tonight dissolving a great Ministry. Its functions, as he admitted later, are still very considerable and are absolutely essential to the life of the community. They are now to be distributed, mostly to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but some to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Tonight, therefore, we are attending a funeral; and looking at the number of hon. Members occupying the benches opposite, it seems to me that the demise of this great Department is causing no dismay or regret and no grief on that side of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal said that his right hon. Friend is a big man, and that he is already doing the work which this Order will transfer to him. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), the Parliamentary Secretary. During the last few months, at any rate, the hon. Member for Luton has answered—I will not say answered so much as done his best to answer—most of the Questions put to his Ministry in this House. I have always watched him in action with the greatest of interest. He is one of the few examples of the fact that W. S. Gilbert occasionally slipped. We all remember the lines from " Iolanthe ":
 That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
The hon. Member for Luton has on the last two occasions at one and the same time fought an election both as a Liberal and a Conservative. I believe that he has also, on other occasions, fought as a national candidate and an independent. At any rate, he has combined in his own person a good many different political colours. We are sorry to see his Ministry go—even though it would have meant, had it stayed, that we should have had to have the hon. Member as Parliamentary Secretary answering Questions for a little while longer.
The death of this Department was announced by the Prime Minister last October. We on this side of the House had hoped that the pause since would have given time for the Government to examine what they were doing a little more closely, and perhaps to have had second thoughts about it. We consider this action of the Government to be reactionary and short-sighted. Whatever the solution may be, the one proposed seems to us quite wrong. For example, on the narrowest view, that of economy both in staff and, I take it, in Ministers as well, it is clearly wrong to transfer all the numerous activities of the Ministry to this one Department.
Since this Order was printed the Government have discovered that in one direction, at any rate, they are making a mistake. I should like to think that they will realise that they have made other mistakes, when they are pointed out, as I have no doubt my hon. Friends will point them out, before the conclusion of this debate, and that they will then be willing to take back this Order and reconsider it. There are quite a number of functions of the present Ministry which should not go to the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the International Sugar and Wheat Agreements which, if they are to leave the Ministry of Food, should go to the Board of Trade. Then there is the food and drug legislation which it has been pointed out, and which, as the right hon. Gentleman was good enough himself to confess, should not go to the Ministry of Agriculture but to the Ministry of Health.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to this Ministry, but I thought that his references were not as generous as they might have been. We cannot let a great Department like this go without paying the highest possible tribute to the wonderful work it has done over the last fifteen years. It was set up at the beginning of the war, and there is not the slightest doubt that it has proved of inestimable value to the community as a whole. It played a remarkable and a magnificent part in the victory achieved by the allies. It may be that without it the result of the war might have been different.
Food control was also instituted during the 1914–18 war, but, as the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall, it was not then nearly so thorough or so prolonged. This time the Ministry has been retained for nearly ten years after the end of hostilities, and I am sure everyone will agree that it has had an enormous effect on the health and welfare of the nation. Bulk buying, price control and rationing of essential foods in short supply, and their even distribution, has helped to keep the cost of living lower than in almost anywhere else in Europe and in the United States. It is disquieting to reflect that it took a world conflict of the magnitude of the last war to ensure the setting up of machinery to see that

the under-privileged at least got enough to eat.
There is no doubt that the health of the community, and particularly that of the children, is today infinitely better than when the Ministry was founded. I was told quite recently that a great teaching hospital in the provinces was anxious to show its students a case of rickets. Rickets, as we know, is a disease of malnutrition. It hunted through the whole broad county in which the hospital was situated, but was unable anywhere to find a case. It is certain that the work of the Ministry of Food, in association, of course, with the Labour Governments of 1945–51, and that since carried on by the present Government, has helped to bring about that result.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the milk in schools scheme of 1934 has played an important part in the health of the children.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of that scheme in which, if I may be allowed to say so, the Labour Party of the time played a very notable part.
I believe that all parties can take a pride in, and can share the feeling of satisfaction at, the fact that this Ministry has helped in the way that it has. Government supporters may believe that we on this side of the House oppose this Order simply because we believe in rationing, and that we want to see rationing reimposed. That is not so. In fact, " Challenge to Britain " makes it quite plain that we neither believe in rationing for its own sake nor in rationing by the purse, which sometimes takes its place.
The fact is that, during their tenure of office, the last Labour Government de-rationed a very wide range of commodities, and, had they been returned in 1951, there is not the slightest doubt that the work then begun would have been continued. After all, in spite of whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, it was the planning and the ground work done by the Labour Governments of 1945–51 which made possible much of the de-rationing which has since taken place.
The policy of the Labour Party is to bring the basic foods within the reach of all, and to establish and maintain high standards of national nutrition. That is


stated in " Challenge to Britain." I repeat this deliberately, because we believe that that policy is one which is essential for the future welfare of the country. Surely, no hon. Member opposite could find anything wrong with a policy of that kind. It is a policy which all parties in the State should follow.
If, therefore, the party opposite also believes that we have to establish and maintain high standards of national nutrition, then it follows that we must have an instrument inside the Government, a Department, through which such a policy can be implemented. We do not believe that it is possible for the Minister of Agriculture, with all the work that he has on his plate, to attend as he should to these additional duties and activities. For that reason, if for no other, we think that the Government should look at this matter again to see whether, until a permanent solution has been worked out, it would not be better to continue the present Department in being.
I know that the vast majority of hon. Members opposite have never believed in the Ministry of Food. To them it has been an unfortunate, but necessary, wartime device not to be endured in time of peace for a moment longer than necessary. To us, the Ministry of Food has a positive function which is as essential in peace as it is in war. It is true that two of the major tasks of that Ministry have now gone. Bulk-buying has largely disappeared, and, of course, the administration of rationing has also come to an end.
These activities, however, are not the only ones upon which the Ministry has been engaged. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food gave us—I think it was on 14th April—quite a long list, which ran into double figures. of the functions which the Ministry still performed, most of which were highly important and essential to the life of the community.
The right hon. Gentleman is not only Minister of Agriculture, but he is also in charge of Crown lands. He is Minister of Fisheries. He has a great deal to do with afforestation—he is the Minister in charge of woods and forests—and now, on top of all these quite considerable tasks, he is to take on quite blithely the functions still remaining to the Ministry of Food. We think it absurd for the

Government to imagine that, capable and extremely energetic though the right hon. Gentleman may be, he can also deal with these matters. It is asking him to take on too much.
A great change has taken place since the days before the war, when many people might have supposed that a Ministry of Food was unlikely to be of much assistance to the community, or to find very much to do. For some time now, Parliament has become increasingly aware that the country has lagged behind others in the standards of cleanliness that it lays down for shops, restaurants, cafés and other places where food is prepared and sold. Not long ago, we had the Food and Drugs Act, and quite a number of Questions have been asked in Parliament on this subject.
The Regulations which are being laid under the Food and Drugs Act are either to be enforced or they are not. If they are, then we should like the Government to say so in order that we may know where we are. The country is now insisting more and more on cleanliness in the preparation and sale of its food, and, as time goes on, the Government must increasingly do more to see that certain minimum standards of hygiene are enforced. Naturally, all this work should be done by the Ministry of Food, or some other analogous Department if it is decided that the Ministry is not necessary. One thing is clear, however, and that is that it ought not to be a mere sideshow of the Minister of Agriculture, who, as we all know, already has his hands very full.
A further consideration which weighs with hon. Members on this side of the House is that increasingly, and very properly, nations are becoming more and more preoccupied with food supplies and the eradication of diseases due to low nutritional standards. Populations are increasing and standards of living are rising among the backward peoples of the world. Food shortages are threatened unless world supplies are not only planned for, but vastly increased.
We now have the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and other international bodies concentrating on these problems. It seems to us that a proper Department should be set up to co-operate in this


work, and that it should not be left as a sort of overtime job for the Minister of Agriculture. This side of the national life not only needs a Department to deal with it but, as it is likely to increase, such a Department would find itself expanding as the years went by.
Hon. Members on this side of the House therefore feel that they must oppose the Order. They do so because it is a lazy and half-baked solution, which is unfair to all concerned. It tips into the lap of one, or at most two, Ministers, a number of functions with which they can have no possible concern. It is unfair to consumers generally, whose interests are quite frankly sacrificed, and it is unfair to the farming community in that it will now be concerned with an overworked Department with divided loyalties. For these and other reasons, which I have not the slightest doubt my hon. Friends will deploy during the debate, we oppose the Order.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has been leading us along a false trail. The Order does not propose that the Ministry of Food shall be swallowed up by the Ministry of Agriculture. It proposes a joint Ministry to look after matters concerning agriculture, fisheries and food. It is quite logical that food is put last in the name of the new Department, because food has to be produced before it can be distributed.
Is it necessary to have a separate Ministry of Food today? If we were to follow the advice given by hon. Members opposite only recently, in the debate upon the cost of living, we should have to have the control of prices which, in the view of many of my hon. Friends, would inevitably lead to the allocation of supplies to distributors and then to ration books.
I quite see that a Ministry of Food would be needed if one pursued that policy, but it is not necessary with the policy now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government. We do not believe in the control of prices; we believe in encouraging enterprise in order to have more food brought into the country from abroad, and encouraging every possible effort to produce more food at home. The mechanism of supply and demand is

operated very largely by the purchasing power of the public, which is now at a record high level.
If we believe that this is the right system of safeguarding our supplies of food and providing a freedom of choice for our people, we do not need a separate Ministry of Food.

Mr. Coldrick: The hon. Member accuses my right hon. Friend of being in favour of controlled prices, and apparently indicates that he is not. Am I to understand that he and his hon. Friends are not in favour of guaranteed prices for agricultural products? What is the difference between a guaranteed price and a controlled price?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not be deterred from my line of argument. I am discussing the necessity, in these days, for maintaining a Department of State known as the Ministry of Food.
I say that in present circumstances, and with the present Government, I do not see the necessity for it. The Opposition might find it necessary if they form a Government in the future, because their policy is very different from ours. If I read aright the marketing policy put forward by the Labour Party, a Ministry of Food certainly would be needed, because somebody would have to procure all the imported food, take over home production, and marry the two.
Those are not the circumstances under which Her Majesty's present Government propose to work. There is a great deal to be said for amalgamating the Ministry of Food with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not say that the Ministry of Food should be swallowed up, but that food production, the safeguarding of the distribution of food, and consumers' interests should be the concern of one Department.
There were many occasions, when the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was Minister of Agriculture —and, perhaps, when his predecessor was in office—when the views of the Minister of Food did not make for a concerted policy. Many unnecessary ructions occurred between the right hon. Member and the Minister of Food. They were, of course, resolved at Cabinet level. That was in the days of the war, and in the days of controls which immediately


followed it. In those days there may have been a need for a separate Department. Today, however, with the present policy of Her Majesty's Government—which is producing the right results for the consumers and the country—I do not see the need for a separate Department. I therefore fully support the proposal to join the Ministry of Food with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has not dealt with one of the essential problems facing the Government, namely, how to implement the policy of guaranteed prices while they have behind them back benchers with a doctrinaire belief in the free market. The Government must decide how much of the taxpayers' money can go into the free market. That is their problem, and that is what is disturbing the farming community, which knows that things cannot go on as they are at present.
I would also say to the hon. Member that the question is not whether there should be price control; we have price control now. Nearly all foodstuffs are subject to price controls. Nearly every day we read of grocers having their supplies withheld because they are not charging the customers the controlled prices. All that my hon. Friends and I wish to do is to see that those controlled prices are reduced.
I join the Leader of the House in paying a tribute to the Ministry of Food. As he is now in office we can both be equally responsible and recognise the enormous amount of work which that Department has done. I speak rather nostalgically, however, because I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will never be the same man after this amalgamation. In the past, he has been a vigorous free marketeer; now he will be rather like a prisoner.
As for the Minister, I recall that in our last debate he described himself as a rabbit. As far as the rabbit of food is concerned, it has myxomatosis. That is a very contagious disease, and I do not think that he has any chance as far as the rabbit of agriculture is concerned.
I merely mention this to call attention to the present dicotomy of one person being two Ministers. He was good enough to come to the House on Friday,

and we respect him for this, to apologise for having misled the House on figures relating to National Savings. These were not the only figures that were incorrect. On 11th March, we discussed agriculture and agricultural production, and, referring to the previous year, he then said:
 Although net output is slightly down—by two points."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 849.]
When we were discussing agriculture last Wednesday, and I referred to his previous speech, when he replied to me, he said:
…last year was an absolute record for the years since the war, not only for gross but for net output…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2105.]
If output is 2 per cent. down on the previous year, I do not know how it can be a record.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The year it was 2 per cent. down was not the last year but the current year.

Mr. Willey: If the output is 2 per cent. down—and I was referring to that output when I referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—I presume that when he challenged me and dealt with agriculture he was referring to the same year, but I am much obliged to him for the correction he has given.
As I say, I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's correction of figures he gave for National Savings, and I am glad that we have now been able to clear up the position regarding agricultural production. We now recognise that whatever the cause agricultural production has, unfortunately, fallen.
The first substantial point which I make on this Order is that this is not a dissolution of the Ministry of Food at all. When the Estimates show an expenditure for the coming financial year of £287 million, and when, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is an establishment of over 5,500 we are not talking about dissolution in any real sense. This, of course, has been done for political reasons, to create the impression that the Government have carried out what they conveyed they would carry out at the last General Election—dissolve the Ministry of Food. When we consider a permanent establishment of 5,500 engaged on permanent work, the Government really have to admit failure and that they have not


by any means dissolved the Ministry of Food.
In fact, there is a very substantial establishment left. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the first question here is whether this amalgamation is not creating an establishment which is far too large purely from an establishment point of view. At any rate, we have the recognition of the Government that the Ministry of Food unavoidably is, none the less, doing important work and that it cannot be disregarded.
Let us turn—because the Department will for the moment remain whether under the umbrella of the Minister of Agriculture or not—from its establishment and the size of its expenditure to its functions. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated being in difficulties about the functions of the Ministry of Food. That is why he said, in effect, " We have, of course, acted prematurely. There may be an election. We want to say that we have the Ministry of Food out of the way, but we are not really as silly as we would appear to be." Of course, no one would think of putting food and drugs under an agricultural production department.
Let us consider some of the other functions. Let us consider what are the present divisions of the Ministry of Food. There is a defence plans division, which is responsible for stockpiling, and the Government, in spite of being for private enterprise, have to recognise that the only way to build up stocks in this country is on Government responsibility. As Professor Keynes said, " The competitive system abhors the existence of stocks."
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that his Department is already in trouble with stocks, but I am sure that he would agree that if we are to have stockpiling of food it must be carried out as a Governmental responsibility. That has nothing to do with the Ministry of Agriculture. It is now conceded, I gather, that the food hygiene division has functions which have nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture, and that most of the work they carry out will be in association with the local authorities.
We shall have to have a Ministry which has some proper channels of association with the local authorities. I asked

the right hon. Gentleman about that, and I am not at all surprised that he did not know the answer. I do not know, and the House does not know, whether this is a clean transference of the food hygiene division to the Ministry of Health. I gather that he said we were to have two food hygiene divisions, one under the Ministry of Health and one under the Ministry of Agriculture and that the Minister of Agriculture would be spokesmen for both of the Ministries and the Minister of Health would act as office boy to send out directives to the local authorities. That is not good administration or good economy.
What about the food standards and labelling division? This is the division which has close and friendly associations with the food trade. I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding his agreement. The last thing that the food trade wants is to be dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture. That is well-known throughout the trade, so I do not see the purpose of upsetting these good relations.
I come to the welfare foods division. What has that division to do with the Ministry of Agriculture? What has its personnel to do with the Ministry of Agriculture? It has a very real association with the local authorities, who are asked to administer this scheme. If the argument applies to the food hygiene division or part thereof it applies equally to the whole of the welfare foods division.
There is the scientific division and the various divisions that centre round it, and who are all primarily concerned with food from the consumers' point of view. They are scientific people. Again, it is inappropriate and anomalous for them to be placed under the Agricultural Production Department. They have a different outlook. Their scientific inquiry follows a different line, and it will certainly prejudice them to be permanently transferred like this.
In short, if we look at the divisions which comprise this large establishment-1 will come back in a moment to those dealing with deficiency payments—nothing could be more inappropriate than to put them under the Ministry of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede that point, when he said that the origins of all these divisions was in other Departments before the


war, that was because it was more appropriate for them to be there. The position we have got to is that it is conceded that a substantial establishment responsible for the administration of a considerable amount of money should continue to exist. If we look at it as an entity, it is far better to leave it as an entity responsible for that administration.
Unless there is an overwhelming case for breaking it up and dividing it, as will eventually happen if this amalgamation is agreed. it will be far more economical and efficient to keep those 5,600 people together. If they are to be removed, it is quite clear from what I have said that they should be removed together. But why should they go to the Ministry of Agriculture?
I will mention some of the other functions on which the Minister touched, such as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The negotiation of that Agreement and its management are quite divorced from the work of the Ministry of Agriculture. There is the International Wheat Agreement. That question still affects us, although we are outside the Agreement. When the Minister referred to the Food and Agriculture Organisation and to the other international organisations, I would remind the House that that is what they are. They are not agricultural organisations, but food and agriculture organisations. They have separate representation and interests, and they are entitled to it.
We have separate interests. We are interested in agricultural production and the procurement of food in this country. We are interested also in the procurement of food outside this country. These are complementary. I concede that point at once. The Government must accept responsibility for reconciling those two interests and ensuring that they work together, but the technical jobs are very different. They are different sorts of people doing different sorts of jobs in different sorts of ways. There is no advantage in putting them together under one Ministry.
There is certainly no case for the dispersal of the establishments. Nor is there a case for their amalgamation with the production Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture. I can only assume, therefore, that this has been done primarily for political reasons, and that, secondly—and

this is not unimportant—it marks the abandonment of the importance of nutritional policy and of welfare food policy by the Government. They dare not abolish it, but they put the establishments responsible for the policy into a Department where they can easily be whittled away in an unsympathetic environment where no one could care less. That is what will happen if the Government remain in power.
I do not think there ought to be conflict between the producer and the consumer. It is largely for that reason that I believe that the producer is entitled to the Ministry of Agriculture as directly and wholly responsible for agricultural production. That is right and proper, and it has worked out well over the past years. If I may give one or two illustrations, I have always taken the view, personally, that the most critical point for any Government's agricultural policy is that of the February Price Review.
That is why I have always held the view that it is essential to have a three-point negotiation. That will now disappear; we shall have simply the producer Department and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This year we had the extraordinary position of the Chancellor overruling the Minister. That will not happen in this way again. What will happen is that the producer will be unable to stand up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is strong fiscal pressure. On the other hand, if the Ministry of Food, or the Ministry protecting the consumer, agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, it would be very difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand up to these two Departments. I believe, therefore, that as a result of this amalgamation the producer will be in a far more vulnerable position.
Nor can such a job as food imports easily be performed by a production Department. It would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, for a producer Ministry—properly taking the view of agriculture, not that of the consumer—to give any effective order affecting imports, because it would at once be suspected as a producer Ministry. We have had all this before in the 'thirties. When we are considering food import policy it is better to have separate representation, knowing that if the two Ministries agree they must have a pretty sound case.
Another illustration is that of subsidies—well over £300 million. I am taking the aggregate total of subsidies, although we do not know what it will be at the end of the financial year. The position is much better if we have a Ministry of Food as an accounting Department rather than have a producer Ministry. From the producer's point of view, there is every advantage in keeping the Departments separate and great disadvantage in such an amalgamation as this, particularly when it is a surrender to political expediency and doctrinaire pressure from the other side of the House.
What the Government are doing tonight is to abandon a deliberate, conscious food policy. That means that they are abandoning any responsibility for increasing our food supplies. I am critical of the Government because, so far as we can see, we are to be prejudiced so far as food supplies are concerned. I would have hoped that in the light of developments over the past few years we could have got non-partisan agreement that we have to accept Government responsibility for increasing our supplies of food. I am keeping off the controversial subject of bulk purchase, but I should have thought that it would be conceded that any present-day Government must keep in day-to-day consultation with, and be prepared to make agreements with, the Commonwealth and other countries.
The Government are getting us into one mess after another. They are cutting our Australian meat imports and the Australians are cutting imports of British cars. I should have thought it far better to discuss these things and to say, " We realise the increasing pressure of world food prices. As a Government we accept responsibility." They are not accepting the responsibility if they push the Ministry of Food into a separate Department which we know cannot conduct such negotiations. Moreover, by this decision the Government are avoiding any responsibility for consumer protection. It is quite clear from the discussions we have had on the developments taking place that a producer Department is not the appropriate body to provide consumer protection.
The Government claim to have been considering this question for three-and-a-half years I would have been much more enheartened if they had come to the House and said, " Our real difficulty is that we believe there is a case for consumer protection, but it means considering a very wide field covering various Departments. For that reason we are not prepared to take any steps at the moment. This amalgamation is purely temporary." They are not doing that, but abandoning the problem. There is a great deal to be said for the case made by many of my hon. Friends. The time has come when again the Government should accept responsibility not only for the procurement of increased supplies from abroad but also for the deliberate, conscious protection of the consumer at home.
Finally, as my right hon. Friend said, this is the end of any nutritional policy. The sort of cavalier way in which these divisions have been dealt with, saying, " They go to Agriculture, but those that do not fit will be shuffled off somewhere else; we do not mind where they go," must disturb the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have thought that by this stage both sides of the House would have recognised the importance of a nutritional policy. It is all very disturbing.
The right hon. Gentleman is a very skilled Parliamentarian. He made a few remarks and smiled benignly on us all. I know just what he is doing. He is carrying out a major change of policy. He is giving way to back-bench pressure of hon. Members who are embarrassed because they stumped to the hustings saying, " We will abolish the Ministry of Food." He as abandoning a good policy for this country, abandoning the consumer and prejudicing the farmer. The farmer, if he should suffer the misfortune of this Government continuing in office, will soon learn that this set-up will not protect him.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I take the view that the Order we are discussing is no more than a provisional Order. I want to know why the Government have not been able to make up their mind to deal with the whole matter and bring it before the House instead of dealing with one section and


telling us they intend to deal with some other sections later.
It seems quite extraordinary when we are presented with an Order which dissolves the Ministry of Food and transfers its responsibility to the Ministry of Agriculture that we should at one and the same time be told that some of the functions are not to stay with the Ministry of Agriculture. Why have the Government not presented to us the full picture in this Order tonight? Is there any particular reason why, when they decided that an Order of this nature had to come before the House, they should not have included in it the full provisions making clear the whole of the intentions of the Government in this matter?
Surely the Government cannot pretend that this is a matter of so much urgency that this rather slipshod Order has to be forced upon us and that we must accept it. The Government have been considering this matter for long enough, and as far as the general public is concerned there is no particular reason why the Order should be presented at this moment, except, as my right hon. Friend suggested, for purely political and electioneering purposes, which can only suggest that the Government have made their decision as to the date of a future General Election and that this is part of the stock in trade of that campaign.
But when we are told, as we have been told by the Lord Privy Seal, that there is to be further consideration of the way in which certain of the very important functions of the Ministry of Food shall be dealt with, and when we are told that there will be another Order to deal with that aspect, it is perfectly fair and proper that we should ask why these two issues should not be dealt with together so that the House should have a proper and complete picture of the Government's intentions.
I was glad to hear the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman, say that the hygiene functions of the Ministry of Food as at present administered were to be transferred, if this change goes through, to the Ministry of Health. But I was not at all clear, and presumably the Government are not very clear either, otherwise they would have made up their minds and let us know what the position was.
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said not only that the Minister of Health

was to have responsibility for the hygiene section, but also that the Minister of Agriculture, as I understood it, was to be responsible for the composition of food to safeguard health. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman will explain that one away. If we are told that the hygiene functions are to be split off from the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and are to go to the Minister of Health and then we are told, " But the matters dealing with the composition of food to safeguard health will not go to the Minister of Health," the House is entitled to a better explanation than we have had so far about the Government's intention.
If the Government are still in travail on this matter, as they might well be—I do not pretend that it is an easy matter to settle—why did they not carry on with their discussions until the matter was settled and clear in their own minds? It is somewhat hard to expect the House to make up its mind' and to be presented with this change when the Government themselves do not know what they are talking about.
A matter of great importance to us all is that when it comes to be decided how these functions are to be distributed, it is obviously vital that we should accept that the Ministry of Health is not merely concerned with the curative problems of health. Plenty of us, on both sides of the House, have argued often enough that one of the most important aspects of health is on the positive side—and clean food is one of the positive sides of health. I think everyone would agree with that, even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, if that is still his correct title.
The Parliamentary Secretary would agree also that it is very important that in considering the future functions and responsibilities of the Ministry of Health, this positive preventive aspect should not in any way be whittled away. I mention this because it is a matter which has been discussed to some extent already in local authority circles and it seems clear that the local authorities are anxious about the future.
After all, who is it who does this work? It is mainly the sanitary inspector and his staff. Is it not right that we should let him and the others know to which Ministry they are to be responsible? Is it


not absurd that we should be going half-cock on this question, with only half the story brought to us? I protest that it is utterly wrong for the Government to present this matter to us in this way. It would have been far better to have waited longer, even to the inconvenience of the election arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman, and to have presented this House, the responsible body, with a full story of what the Government intend to do.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) is not here, because I would like to say to him that if I were a farmer I should be sorry to see these consumer protection services of the Ministry of Food buried in the Ministry of Agriculture. The farmers must realise that it will be the consumer pressure for proper abattoirs, for cold stores, for food-canning and preserving plants, for creameries, for all the secondary agricultural activities that will give the farming community the prosperity which it ought to have without subsidies, without taxation going into the pockets of the farmers. I can see no drive for that kind of development for the benefit of agriculture coming from the Ministry of Agriculture with the Ministry of Food associated with it and buried there.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in introducing this Motion: did not give us the complete history of the Ministry of Food. It started before that Ministry began. It started in the Food (Defence Plans) Department of the Board of Trade; Mr. Speaker was there to see that the plans were started—

Mr. Thomas Williams: Sir Thomas Inskip was first.

Mr. G. Darling: But Mr. Speaker then took it over, and one of the most disgraceful episodes in British political life was the way Mr. Speaker's successor at the Ministry of Food took all the credit for the work of his predecessor without giving any credit to the man who did all the planning and all the preliminary work. However, that is typical of the handling by the Conservative Party of this question of looking after the food of the people. They have always regarded the Ministry

of Food as a purely defensive and almost negative administration, as if it had a negative function to fulfil and only when food was scarce was there any real need for the Ministry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, there are a number of functions inside the Ministry of Food which cannot find any place in the Ministry of Agriculture, which is concerned with looking after the interests of the farmers and of the farming community, if that Ministry is to do the job properly.
The functions mentioned are not of minor importance but of considerable importance. The responsibility for implementing such statutes as the Food and Drugs Act is an important one even if it is to be split and the job of looking after food hygiene is to remain in the Ministry of Agriculture. There are other important jobs which are to be taken over from the Ministry of Food which ought not to become the secondary concern of any other Ministry because they are of primary importance if the consumer interest of this country is to be looked after.
It ought to be recognised by now that, as was mentioned in the debate last week, if we could bring together the consumer protection services of a number of Ministries into one Department, we should be doing a good job of work for the people. If that is impracticable with the present Government in office, as it undoubtedly is, we ought to go back to the situation that we had before the Ministry of Food was started, and the functions that grew out of the Food (Defence Plans) Department of the Board of Trade ought to go back into a special department of the Board of Trade. I am convinced that neither the producer nor the consumer will derive any benefit if these functions become the responsibility purely of a producers' administration inside the Government.
All the people in the country are concerned in this in respect of their health and well-being. The nutritional policy which has built up our people is now at stake, because the Minister of Agriculture cannot concern himself, except by doing things which the farmers do not want him to do, with all the big jobs of consumer protection, looking after the health and welfare of the people, for which the Ministry of Food was responsible. It is a mistake to get rid of the Ministry of


Food, but if it has to be got rid of because its functions have declined, it ought to go, not to the Ministry of Agriculture, but somewhere where consumers' interests can be looked after.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: Listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that this is not so much the dissolution of a Ministry as the dispersal of its functions. The Government's attitude to the problem has been dictated more than anything else by the pressing need to find something to speak about when it comes to a General Election in relation to the pledges which they have given.
I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the functions of the Ministry of Food, the growth of which we saw during the war, have considerably diminished, but I should have thought that a Government which was interested in the well-being of the people would have been concerned not so much about the dispersal of the Ministry's functions as relating the Ministry and its functions to present-day needs. The community has a pressing need today for a Ministry which will adequately look after the food of the people in the sense of its standard and adequacy, not only in relation to the work actually done by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but also in relation to the wider aspect of the procurement of food, and the procurement of the right kind of food. I am disappointed that the Government have missed a great opportunity for nutritional advance.
To a great extent I am in sympathy with some of my English colleagues. They are very much concerned about what is to happen to, say, the hygiene functions of the Ministry when they pass in the first place to the Minister of Agriculture and later to the Minister of Health. In Scotland we have not got that problem because the functions will go to the Secretary of State.
However, in that respect we have another problem. My English colleagues are concerned in that the Minister of Agriculture already has agriculture to look after. What about the Secretary of State for Scotland? He has to be the Minister of Health for Scotland, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Minister of Education and the

Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He has special responsibility for the Highlands and road development in the Highlands. The Government have recently transferred to him responsibility for Scottish roads and transport. There is also to be transferred to him the question of electricity generation and distribution in Scotland as well as responsibilities for J.P.s and animal diseases and the whole question of the Home Department. There are at least five Ministers who sit on the Government Front Bench answering my English and Welsh colleagues on various subjects. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for every one of those things in Scotland and is now to be given a new task.
How can it be wondered that I am concerned whether or not this will be adequately done in Scotland? I notice that in paragraph 3 (a) and (b) some attention is paid to the Minister's retinue. He may have three Under-Secretaries to do the work of that one Ministry. I have related all the Departments in Scotland, and we already have three under-Secretaries. Who will do the additional work? It is little wonder that one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland has announced that he is not to stand at the next General Election. If he had not made up his mind he would quickly have done so on reading this Order and seeing what he was expected to do. Adequate attention will not be paid to the different functions that are being transferred. Scotland already has a Department of Agriculture. Are we to have a Department of Food? I gather that we are.
What will happen? Which one of the Joint Under-Secretaries will look after it? Will it be the one who at present looks after local government, health and housing, or will it be the Joint Under-Secretary who is responsible for agriculture and fisheries? The Government should at least have taken stock of the problem in Scotland and told us how the Order was to apply in Scotland. That would have been better than the speech made by the Leader of the House, who obviously did not know very much about the Order, in general, and nothing about its application to Scotland, in particular.
The Order will mean one of two things for Scotland. Firstly there will be inadequate Ministerial supervision over these new duties that are being passed to the


Scottish Office. We have pretty well reached breaking point at the moment, because there are so many functions dealt with by one Scottish Minister that every additional function is a growth of bureaucracy, of the power of the civil servant, because the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot adequately cope with this wide range of functions, even with three Under-Secretaries. Since those three Under-Secretaries were appointed, many other functions have been put upon them. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that responsibility for many of these things, with which we are told the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland could jointly deal, will really fall to the Minister of Agriculture, and Scotland will play a pretty shadowy part in that joint activity.
Quite apart from the remaining functions of the Ministry of Food, including the still outstanding wartime functions which have not been specified, functions relating to trading in food are entirely transferred to the Minister of Agriculture. Scottish farmers will be concerned about that. Trading in food and the importing of food by the Government for immediate need or strategic reasons are matters that concern Scottish farmers.
However, these matters will be dealt with without any consultation with Scottish farmers by the Minister of Agriculture. Certainly no provision for any consultation is laid down in the Order. The Order fails in two ways. It fails to rise to the national need when we still require a Ministry of Food directing its policy in a positive way to increasing the amount and quality of food that the people in this country are getting, especially now we have gone back to the much vaunted free enterprise system. Secondly, the Order in itself obviously will not work satisfactorily. This is not the dissolution of the Ministry, it is the dispersal of the Ministry in such a way that the administration, in the outcome, will be thoroughly inefficient.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), announcing our dissent from the Motion, said that we were present at the obsequies of the Ministry of Food. I do not think that anyone who had the honour

of being Minister of Food could let the occasion pass without saying a word in tribute to the work of that Ministry, not under any particular Minister, in the war period, in the post-war period and right up to the present day.
I am sure that the present Minister will acquit me of any intention of making a party point when I say that, as was the case in the First World War also, it was the post-war period which was the most difficult, as usually happens in the case of food in great wars. But, both in the war and in the post-war period, everyone who saw the work of that Ministry was enormously impressed by the tremendous devotion which its staff gave to their difficult and sometimes awkward duties. I do not know who to praise most, the regular civil servants who worked themselves almost to a standstill in that task, or the business men who took such an active part in the war-time and post-war periods. They both did extraordinary work, and I do not think that we could let this occasion pass without saying so.
On the whole, I take the view that it would not be right to suggest that the Ministry of Food, certainly in its old original form, should continue indefinitely. The time has come when probably we want some change in the administrative arrangements, but that is quite different from saying that we want the change that is proposed. Certainly, we on this side of the House are totally opposed to the reimposition of what was, numerically, the biggest task of the Ministry. We are totally opposed to the reimposition of rationing. Our only difference with the Government there is that we go a good deal further than they do, because we are opposed to all forms of rationing, including financial rationing—rationing by the purse.
Therefore, that alone will change the functions of any future body, call it what you will, which we think necessary to fulfil some, though by no means all, the old functions of the Ministry of Food. What do we think ought to be done? I heard the Leader of the House argue that it was essential to place the remaining functions of the Ministry of Food in the hands of one man, but he entirely spoiled that argument by promptly announcing that the Order that does that is to be followed by another one which takes some of those functions out of the hands of this


one man, the Minister of Agriculture, and puts them into the hands of the Minister of Health.
Be that as it may, we do not think that the Minister of Agriculture—I do not mean the present holder of the office particularly, but any Minister of Agriculture —is the right man into whose hands all these functions should go. It has been pointed out that he is one of the hardest worked and hardest pressed Ministers in the Government today. To put on his shoulders and into his hands the miscellany of functions not directly connected with his main functions is open to great objection.
I expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that there is something more behind our objection to these functions going to the Minister of Agriculture. I think it right to say, frankly, that there is something more. At any rate, there is in my mind. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is, and should be, essentially a producers' man. The farmers and agricultural producers should have the most powerful representation in the Government. We on this side of the House are far from supposing that the laws of supply and demand, referred to by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), are the right things to which to expose the farmers. If we left the farmers to the laws of supply and demand, they would come off very badly indeed. It would be the worst fate that could befall them in present-day conditions, with the vast aggregation of industrial power, and with competition more and more driving out the so-called private enterprise system in the industrial field.
To leave the scattered small-scale agricultural producers to the laws of supply and demand would be quite ruinous for them. Therefore, we support the view that agriculture should have the strongest possible representation in the Government, and, in the teeth of the surprising views of the hon. Member for Newbury, we support the policy of guaranteed prices. But just because we support all these things so strongly, many of us have great doubts about giving to the representative of consumer interests in the Government the remaining functions of the Ministry of Food essentially concerned with the protection of consumer interests. In the interests of the farmers, I cannot believe that to be a good arrangement.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that when there were two Ministers for Agriculture and Food there were ructions between the views of the producer and the consumer. I would not use the word " ructions " about the Government of which I was a member. There were, of course, disputes and differing views, and problems were regarded from different angles. But it is not right that the interests of both consumers and producers should have the same representation. We complain that under this arrangement consumer interests will have lost all representation, and that is a bad scheme. After all, we are paying £270 million a year of the taxpayers' money to the producers. I am not saying that that is wrong, but it is pushing things fairly far. If the agricultural interest tries to sweep away all consumer representation and protection, in the end things will have been pushed too far, and there will be a very strong reaction which I should not wish to see.
I consider it a most unfortunate arrangement by which these remaining, but very important, functions of the Food Ministry are to be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. If we are against that, we may be challenged to say of what we are in favour. It has been suggested that, alternatively, many of these functions—perhaps all of them —should be put back, as my hon. Friend reminded us, to the Board of Trade, from whence they originally came. In certain cases, that may be quite suitable. In international agreements that might work well enough, but I am not attracted by that solution either. After all, the Board of Trade is one of the vast and most sprawling Departments. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows it well, having served there. To add another great section to it seems to be a very doubtful policy.
Without claiming for one moment that my mind is made up at this stage, I must say that I have been attracted by the suggestion made by many hon. Members on this side of the House who have associations with the Co-operative movement, in particular, for a new Ministry to be called the " Ministry of Consumers' Welfare," or something of that sort, which should inherit these essentially consumer functions of the Ministry of Food, and should add to them the functions for the protection of the consumer over the widest pos-


sible field, not only in food, because food is only one of the things which people consume.
In this age of trusts, of retail price maintenance, of courts which are not courts of law but private courts administering rules and regulations laid down by private organisations in their own interests and against, prima facie at any rate, the interests of the consumer, in an age where competition is very rapidly draining out of the economic system in the industrial field, I think that some such Ministry as that—of which the functions of the Ministry of Food would form the nucleus—for the protection of the consumer is, at any rate at first hearing, a very attractive idea.
We believe, therefore, that while something ought to be done, the Government are doing almost exactly the wrong thing in this Order. In the most inappropriate fashion, they are placing these consumer functions in the hands of what is, and what ought to be, a producers' Ministry. We ask the Government to think again very carefully about the matter, and, in particular, to consider the suggestion of a new Ministry especially entrusted with the consumers' interests, which seems to me to have much to commend it.

9.24 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): In introducing this Order my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reminded us of the reasons which have led the Government to propose to merge these two Departments, and therefore I need not now repeat those reasons. As my right hon. Friend also said, I have assisted in what I will call the ceremonial leavetaking to the separate existence of the Ministry of Pensions, the Ministry of Materials, and now of the Department which we are discussing today. I also assisted at the obsequies of the Raw Cotton Commission. I am beginning to regard myself as a sort of assistant liquidator, and, possibly, as an assistant undertaker.

Mr. George Wigg: Of the Government.

Mr. Amory: In the service of the Government. However, I do not think that we need look on this as a gloomy occasion. In one sense, I consider that

we are celebrating the end of the need for food controls and rationing. In another sense, it is not a funeral but a marriage which we are celebrating—and, I think, a marriage between two parties who are well suited to one another. It is a marriage in which the two parties are unlikely to fall out and also—something, I am informed, which is not invariably the case in human marriages—one which will be a means to economy.
The last major surgical operation with which the Department of Agriculture was concerned took place in 1919, when the Board of Agriculture was turned into a Ministry, and the Minister, in defending that change in this House, said:
 The Board itself is a perfectly ineffectual body, which consists, no doubt, of very eminent persons, such as all His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. It has met whenever it has been summoned, but as it has never been summoned the effect of its meetings has not been very great."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1919; Vol. 121, c. 1956.]
If we had such a board at the present time I think I could guarantee that there would be enough work to necessitate its having plenty of meetings.
I was very glad to hear the tributes which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) paid to the Ministry of Food and its staff. It has been in existence for 15 years, and I should like to join with those right hon. Gentlemen in paying a sincere tribute to its achievements in the nation's service. I have been responsible for the Department only for a few months, and as I have had no credit for its achievements I feel that I can pay that tribute. The foundations were laid by the small Food (Defence Plans) Department, and at the outbreak of war a hastily improvised staff was called upon to play a crucial part in the war economy and, under novel and trying conditions, to sustain what very quickly became a vast trading organisation.
I think that the House will wish to recall the success which the Department had. Under the skilful and vigorous leadership of my noble Friend Lord Woolton it met a great challenge, and we know what a contribution it made to sustaining morale in those dark days, when the public never doubted that its ration coupons would be honoured. Then, with the end of the war, as time


went on people became more impatient over rationing and the irksome restrictions of war-time control that still remained. I am sure that my predecessors —on both sides of the House—will join with me in expressing their appreciation of the way in which the staff of the Department carried out its duties in those difficult days during and after the war.
Lately, the Department has had the difficult job of carrying through the task of decontrol with the many problems involved in effecting the considerable transition from Government trading to private enterprise.

Mr. F. Beswick: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a passing reference to the nutritional policy for which the Ministry of Food was responsible? He has spoken about rationing and controls, but they were not the whole of the Ministry's responsibilities.

Mr. Amory: I shall certainly come to that subject in a moment. I think it is most important, and I gladly pay a tribute to the work which the Department devoted to building it up over the past 15 years.
I should like to comment, too, upon the co-operative spirit which the staff of the Ministry has shown during the rather painful process of running down in the last few years. Of the many thousands that have left the Department as their share of the work has come to an end, the great majority consisted of temporary officers. We should remember the great service that those men and women rendered, both during and after the war, and express our gratitude to them.
In the recent stages of the reduction it has been necessary to disperse about 5,000 established officers who have been serving in the local organisations of the Ministry, and I have been very grateful for the help that we have received from other Government Departments in absorbing those officers. All in all, I am quite certain that the Ministry of Food has performed a difficult job with outstanding success and deserves very well of the nation.
Although in conditions of freedom there is now required little administrative supervision and interference by the Government in the national food supply, I am very anxious that the new Department should continue to maintain the

present pleasant and fruitful relations that obtain with the food trades and industries of this country. I should like to acknowledge the debt which we feel we owe to the food trades for the help and co-operation which they have invariably extended to the Department.
I should now like to refer to one argument which has been used this evening—that the interests of the consumer will be sacrificed by this amalgamation. I agree that if that were true it would be a serious objection and, I think, a decisive objection to this merger. But in fact I do not believe that there is substance in that argument. The two Ministers concerned have both been engaged in devising and administering policies in the interests of consumers.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it was also argued that not only would the consumer possibly suffer by the amalgamation, but the farming community would suffer in that he himself as Minister would have far too much to do.

Mr. Amory: I will come to that in a moment. I want to make the point that I do not regard the Ministry of Agriculture as solely a producers' Department. The Ministry of Agriculture, as I have said, has been and always is very much concerned with the interests of the consumers. I have only held these two portfolios for a few months, but during that time I have not found myself mentally torn asunder by conflicting interests.
I ask the House to remember that the ultimate objective of the encouragement of home food production is the long-term welfare of the consumer. One thing of which I personally am perfectly certain is that a healthy, efficient and prosperous agriculture is something that is in the interest of every person in this country. I think that sometimes where conflict is more apt to arise in connection with agriculture is in adjudicating between the interests of the producers and of the taxpayers.
I want to say this about the Government's responsibility. I think that it is sometimes forgotten that it is the Government as a whole that settles policy and not individual Ministers. The suggestion seems to be that a single Minister would be intellectually and morally incapable of setting the issues in any conflict of


interests fully and fairly before the Cabinet—because after all it is the Cabinet in the end that takes the decision. I suggest that there is very little weight in that argument. The interests of the consumers must be prominently and continuously in the minds of such a Minister, and he would be bound to keep them before his colleagues. I am glad to say, too, that there is no lack of voices in the House to speak for the consumer, and I do not think that any failure on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Food to put the position of the consumer fairly before his colleagues would long pass unnoticed in the House or easily be forgiven.
We must remember the circumstances in which we are living. Hon. Members opposite sometimes do not yet seem to understand that we are now in a free system, that ration books and shortages have gone, and that the housewife can spend her money as she likes and where she likes, with the forces of competition at work. As the result of spending her money, she seems to be getting more, better and more varied food.
The main way, I suppose, in which freedom can be restricted to the disadvantage of the consumer is by raising tariffs or quota restrictions. So far as the functions of individual Ministers are concerned, these matters are the responsibility of the Government acting through the President of the Board of Trade and not through the Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food, although the Ministers and the President naturally work closely together within the Government.
There is another respect in which it might be held that the consumers' interest would suffer, and that is in connection with the control of marketing boards. The Ministers responsible for marketing boards under the Agriculture Marketing Acts always have been the Agricultural Ministers. In considering and approving marketing schemes, Ministers of Agriculture have to act judicially under the Acts, balancing all the interests involved. I cannot see therefore that this change, adding the functions of the Minister of Food to those of the Minister of Agriculture, will alter in any way the existing judicial position of the agricultural Ministers. On

the contrary, in a sense it strengthens their duty to act judicially.
I will not run through in detail the functions of the Department that are to be transferred. They are important and I will summarise them. First, is the performance of executive duties in administering the price guarantees under the Agriculture Act, the payment of agricultural subsidies, and what are called the " consumer subsidies " for bread and welfare foods, totalling, as has been said, some £285 million. These functions are closely allied with agriculture and occupy a substantial part of the staff. Then there is the supervision of the long-term contracts, and of the overseas work and arrangements of the Ministry of Food. There are very important long-term contracts like the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and certain long-term agreements with the Colonies, and the work of the O.E.E.C., N.A.T.O., F.A.O. and of a number of other organisations, with whose initials I will not bewilder the House.
There Is the supervision of the general food import programme, the important defence plans—to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred—and the emergency food reserves. I agree that all those amount to matters of great importance, which is why the Government have decided that this shall not be an absorption but the setting up of a new Department. Lastly, I ought to refer, under the work of the Department, to the remaining work in winding up the trading activities of the Ministry of Food. That will continue for some time.
I was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in connection with the functions which have been transferred to Scotland. That was the first time I had heard a Scottish Member protesting that the transfer of responsibilities to Scotland. Indeed, I thought that was what Scottish Members always like to see happen.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should come to the House more often.

Mr. Amory: In this case, most of the food activities will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the exception of the most general functions on a national scale or the functions dealing with overseas matters. The bulk of the food and drugs administration is


already administered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
As my right hon. Friend said, the general food and drugs administration is not being dealt with by this Order. That is so not because of any change of plan by the Government. We were advised that as that transfer does not require a Transfer of Functions Order but could be dealt with by an ordinary order, it would be more convenient to have it dealt with by a separate order.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when it is to be presented and whether there will be a proper opportunity for discussion?

Mr. Amory: It will be brought forward as soon as possible. We are very anxious that there should be the minimum delay between the bringing into effect of this transfer order and the transfer to the Ministry, of Health of such parts of the work as will go to that Department. The intention is that the responsibility for cleanliness and hygiene should go to the Ministry of Health and that the responsibility for food composition, food labelling and advertising should remain with the new Department. As the House knows, regulations in this case are all made jointly, and that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the other order be subject to the affirmative procedure when presented, or to the negative procedure? That makes a very big difference.

Mr. Amory: I cannot give a final reply to that tonight, but I am inclined to think that the negative procedure would be sufficient for this purpose.

Mr. Willey: Why was the other order not laid contemporaneously if the decision had been taken when this Order was made? I do not want to press the point, but why is the Minister not fully informed about it?

Mr. Amory: I am fully informed that it is not necessary to have more than an order requiring the negative procedure for this purpose.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but some time ago I handled the provisions under which the Government are now acting. I understand

that the further order will be an order providing for the transfer of functions between one Department and another. If that is so, surely it must be approved by an affirmative Motion in a similar manner to the Order now before the House.

Mr. Amory: That is not the advice I have had. I understand the reason is that such a transfer would not involve the winding up—the termination—of a Department. I think that is the point. There will be an exception to the transfer of the cleanliness and hygiene regulations as the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The primary responsibility for slaughterhouses, meat, milk and dairies regulations would more conveniently, we think, remain with the new Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When I say that these responsibilities will be transferred to the Ministry of Health that is only the primary responsibility, because in all these matters regulations have to be made jointly and there has to be the very closest consultation. Primary responsibility for the new Food Hygiene Advisory Council, it is intended, will go to the Ministry of Health.
So far as the decision that primary responsibility for composition and labelling should remain with the new Department, we have been influenced very largely by a point which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—the necessity for maintaining close relations with the food trades. At present those relations do exist, and I trust they will continue to exist between the new Department and the food trades. In these cases it is desirable that the routine responsibility so far as possible should remain with the new Department, otherwise the food trades would find themselves having to deal not with one Department, but with two.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I apologise for having to interrupt so frequently, but could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to have this delay between the presentation of the two orders? Why cannot the House discuss the whole matter—which is one issue—together, instead of having one after another?

Mr. Amory: I have explained that we are advised that it would be more convenient if it were dealt with by two separate orders. [HON. MEMBERS: " Who by?"] I really cannot see that it makes


very much difference whether we debate and discuss both these things on the same evening or on two evenings. Anyway, this evening I am afraid that if I continued very far in that direction, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order because there is no mention of the subsequent transfer in the Order we are discussing at present.
I ought to say a word about economies—

Mr. Wiley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask if it would not have been better to have first transferred the functions to the Ministry of Health and then laid a transfer of functions order? Then we would have been able to discuss the transfer of functions order knowing precisely what was being transferred. At present we are not sure.

Mr. Amory: I cannot quite follow the hon. Member in that. It would seem perfectly clear what we are doing. [HON.MEMBERS: " No."] If it is not clear, hon. Members no doubt will have a chance of debating the question when the subsequent order is brought before the House.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect— [HON. MEMBERS: " 0h."] This surely is a vital issue. What the Minister is saying is purely on a technical point that does not inconvenience anyone. What it amounts to is that, instead of the House being in a position to debate this matter as a whole, now we are to be faced with a debate after 10 o'clock at night, perhaps at the end of a long and difficult day, when the matter cannot be given the attention it deserves. It is a really important issue.

Mr. Amory: I am afraid it would be quite improper if I were to continue that discussion any further because it is not dealt with in the Order we are discussing this evening; but we did feel we ought to tell the House on this occasion what our subsequent intention will be as regards that section of the work of the Ministry.
I ought to say one word about the effect of this merger from the point of view of economies. Big economies have been or will be obtained from the end of Government trading. But apart from trading losses, the administrative cost of the Ministry of Food at the present time

is only a fraction of what it was a few years ago. Further economies will result from this merger over the next year.
Three possibilities were open to us. First, we could have kept the remaining part of the Ministry of Food as a separate Department. I do not believe that that would have been a good plan. With the end of rationing and Government trading, a Department of that size and with those functions would not, in effect, have been in a good position to protect consumer interests. The second choice would have been to split up the Department and its remaining functions between three or four Government Departments, which would have been a complete disintegration. That way, had we followed it, would clearly have afforded no protection whatever to consumer interests. The third way is the course we have chosen.
I am sure that the whole nation will rejoice that we have reached the situation where food is plentiful again and freedom of choice has been re-established. The step which we are asking the House to approve tonight sets the seal on that achievement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we be told what the estimated economies will be?

Mr. Amory: The Government are confident that in normal times private enterprise is much better able to ensure a plentiful and varied food supply to the nation at competitive prices than any Government-run agency could do. The nation, I am sure, agrees with that view. Let us rejoice, therefore, that we can now dispense with this special organisation which was set up for wartime purposes.
These proposals for merging the majority of the residual but useful functions of the Ministry of Food with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries into one Department, I am convinced, will prove a sensible efficient and economical arrangement and one which is in the very best interests of the consumers. I hope that the House will approve this Order.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: It is not my intention to hold up the Division for more than a minute or two. I want to make only one point; my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made it very clearly and it was emphasised by my hon. Friend the


Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). It is clear that the Government have not yet made up their minds who will administer the Food and Drugs Act, 1954.
If. however, the Government have made up their minds, why should we not have been discussing that today instead of at a later date? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in a word, who, between now and the date of the next Order, will administer that Act? Are we to take it from what he has already said, and from what the Leader of the House said, that the Act is on the Statute Book but is not being administered and is not likely to be administered—effectively, at all events until a new Order is brought before the House?
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the wonderful work that was done by the Overlord of Food and Agriculture when he took office in 1940, but not one word was said by the right hon. Gentleman about the predecessor of the Minister of Food in 1940, who laid all the plans and made it possible for his successor, the later Overlord of Food and Agriculture, to be the so-called successful Minister of Food during the whole of the war.
At the risk of embarrassing Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said.

Mr. Williams: I was here and I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who paid such

grand compliments to his right hon. Friend the ex-Overlord, made no reference to the then Minister who laid the foundations for the later successful Minister of Food.

The only other thing I want to say is that the right hon. Gentleman, on three or four occasions in my hearing, and in the hearing of all hon. Members in the House, laid emphasis on the fact that we have now abolished rationing and that the housewife is happy, implying that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the new food situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen, because I do not think he will repeat frequently what he has said three or four times within these past few months about the abolition of rationing. What contribution have this Government made to the abolition of rationing?

Sir Thomas Moore: They have done it.

Mr. Williams: Although there have been disputes between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food on numerous occasions, between 1947–48 and 1951–52—during the term of office of the previous Labour Government—food production increased by 5 per cent. per annum. This Government have been in office for four years and food production has increased by 1 per cent. per annum. That is the contribution this Government have made to derationing.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 172.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Scott, Sir Donald


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Sharpies, Maj. R. C.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maude, Angus
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Hollis, M. C.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)


Holt, A. F.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Neave, Airey
Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim,N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Iremonger, T. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Teeling, W.


Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Heref'd)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kerr, H. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon,W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. P. (M'nm'th)


Legge-Bourke, Ma). E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wade, D. W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Ramsden, J. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth,S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (L'nd'n &amp; Westm'r)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
 Wellwood, W.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, R. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
TELLERS FOR THE AIESI


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.


NOES


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Allen, Scholefieid (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Baird, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Benson, G.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, Rt. Han. A. Creech


Beswick, F.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Jones. Jack (Rotherham)


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, James (Wrexham)


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Kenyon, C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowden, H. W.
Gooch, E. G.
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Lawson, G. M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
MacColl, J. E.


Burke, W. A.
Hannan, W.
McGovern, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hardy, E. A.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Champion, A. J.
Hastings, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Coldrick, W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Collick, P. H.
Hobson, C. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Manuel, A. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, Horace
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Mason, Roy


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Messer, Sir F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moody, A. S.


Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.



Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Rhodes, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Morrison, Rt. H n. Herbert(Lewis'mS.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Weitzman, D.


Moyle, A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Murray, J. D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
West, D. G.


Orbach, M.
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Owen, W J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdngton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Padley, W. E.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wlgg, George


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pannell, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Parker, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Paton, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willis, E. G.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightsids)


Porter, G.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Yates, v. F.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Probert, A. R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Proctor, W. T.
Thornton, E.
Mr. Pearson and


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wallace, H. W.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 16th March.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGE

Complaint of the hon. Member for Maldon, regarding the action of the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General, Salisbury Plain District, in threatening the Reverend J. P. Stevenson, one of his subordinate chaplains, with a view to influencing proceedings in Parliament, referred to the Committee of Privileges. —[Mr. Driberg.]

Orders of the Day — CASE OF THOMAS MARKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.7 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The case which I wish to raise this evening is that of Mr. Thomas Henry Marks, of Redruth, an ex-soldier now aged 59. He was wounded by enemy shell fire on the night of 3rd November, 1917, during a heavy bombardment of our lines as our troops were preparing to attack Gaza for the third time. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance admit that he then received multiple gunshot wounds. An old colleague of mine at County Hall, Truro, was alongside Mr. Marks when he fell.
I think we might for a moment consider the pattern of events at that time. In October, 1917, there was the great battle of Passchendaele, in which there were 400,000 casualties. The Italian Army collapsed at Caporetto with a loss to the Allied Armed Forces of 800,000 soldiers. It was also the time of the great October Revolution of Russia, which took Russia out of the war. Field Marshal Allenby was conducting his great movement in Palestine partly, presumably, as a diversion and partly to accomplish what had been the dream of the Christian world, to end the Turkish domination of Palestine. On 6th November Gaza fell and on 8th December the Turks abandoned Jerusalem after 400 years' occupation.
Mr. Marks as one of the private soldiers in that war and in that battle had gunshot wounds in both legs—multiple wounds involving the bones and tissues of each leg. He was awarded a 30 per cent. disability pension. This was thought by him to be not altogether unsatisfactory as, until 1952, he was able to work fairly regularly. He then had pains in his legs. He was treated for arterio-sclerosis. Eventually, the legs became gangrenous. He was admitted to hospital on 26th October, 1953. He had one leg removed. Then, a month or so later, the second leg had to be amputated. Both amputations were above the knee.
I should like to know whether the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is satisfied that the causes of arterio-sclerosis are sufficiently known for anyone to be quite satisfied that this condition was not ultimately traceable to the multiple gunshot wounds in this man's


legs in 1917. The doctor who has been attending him through the years is Dr. O'Donnell. of Redruth. a man who is very highly respected in that town, which happens to be the one in which I have lived for over thirty years. He says that the amputations could well have been due, in the first instance, to the man's injuries. He tells me that the bilateral amputation is practically unknown.
It seems to an ordinary layman fairly obvious that there must have been some other aggravating condition. An aggravating condition could well have been the scarred tissues of the leg preventing the setting up of new blood circulation. The scarred tissues were pressing on the blood vessels already there. These two conditions, taken together, could have prevented a proper circulation. Another factor is that the second amputation followed so quickly on the first.
Mr. Marks claimed full disability pension. Who would have thought that a man wounded, as he was wounded, in battle would have been denied that full disability pension even though these severe amputations of the legs took place so many years afterwards? The Ministry's senior doctors, however, are unable to connect leg trouble with war wounds or war service. What an extraordinary statement—unable to connect these amputations with the war wounds of thirty years ago.
Later, an independent medical expert said that the wounds of both legs played no part in causing gangrene. All I can say is that these experts fail to convince me and millions of other ordinary people who think along common sense lines. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether he is sure what causes arteriosclerosis? If the answer is in the negative, how can he be sure that the war wounds were not a contributory cause? If there is any medical doubt at all, surely the man is entitled to the full benefit of it. I should like a categorical answer to that question.
I should like to know whether this man has been seen by a medical man other than his own doctor or case reports, and if he has, how often. To the layman, the relationship between these war wounds and the culminating double operation seems clear and logical. I submit that

medical opinion must be tempered by common sense. Doctors have a history of disagreement on medical issues just as great as the differences on political issues between politicians. I understand that not long ago cortisone was regarded as the great new remedy for rheumatism. It was then rare and expensive, just the qualities for all the newspapers to expound and make a lot of. Now I believe that the idea has been exploded and that the simple aspirin is probably equal or better than cortisone for rheumatism.
If some of us retain a healthy scepticism about the profundities of some medical experts, surely we are justified. In 1954, the Ministry rejected the claim of a man discharged from the forces in 1942 because of ill-health. He developed severe pulmonory tuberculosis. Although, during his service, the man was subjected to living in the open air under severe conditions. the Ministry held that this had nothing to do with his subsequent tuberculosis. That seems to me an extraordinary viewpoint. It so happens that that man lives within a quarter of a mile of Mr. Marks, in Redruth. I quote this example to show how much many of us are becoming doubtful about the decisions of medical experts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) brought to the notice of the Minister the case of a man who had died, and where, eight or nine months afterwards, the Ministry experts rejected the death certificate, even though the cause of death had been ascertained by a post-mortem examination. We wonder whether the chief function of the medical experts is to reject these claims. But surely all hon. Members of this House wish to give justice, and more than justice to ex-soldiers and other ex-members of the Forces, either men or women, who have suffered injury or illness as a result of their war services.
I should like to say something about the financial condition of Mr. Marks. I will read extracts from a letter I received from the area officer of the National Assistance Board. He wrote:
 Mr. Marks' disability pension was increased to 15s. 6d. a week from 2nd February, 1955, and this amount is disregarded in our assessment. Part of this disregarded resource must be treated as available to meet the special expenses to which you refer, and it is for this reason that I am unable to make a discretionary addition to his weekly allowance in this respect. However, there are some shortages


of bed-linen, and in the exceptional circumstances of this case I am making a grant of £5 so that these can be made good.
I wrote to the area officer to ask him whether he would tell me what is the man's income and the National Assistance allowance. I was told,
 The current allowance is calculated as follows. Scale rate for applicant and wife, 63s.; rent (in full), 10s.; total, 73s. Resources: sickness benefit (in full). 52s.; disability pension, 15s. 6d. a week, wholly disregarded: nil; total, 21s."—
the net amount of the National Assistance allowance. The following is significant:
 From 19th May, 1955. Mr. Marks' Sickness Benefit will be increased and the Board's allowance will be correspondingly reduced from week commencing 23rd May.
The Government are responsible for the hardship to this man and to hundreds of thousands of other people who are in receipt of National Assistance. I wish to emphasise that part of this miserable disability pension of 15s. 6d. a week must be available to meet special expenses of the heavy wear and tear on bed clothes, towels, etc., which are the ordinary concomitants of a disabled man like Mr. Marks.
This hero's total income for himself and his devoted wife is £4 8s. 6d. a week, and, when his sickness benefit is increased in May, his National Assistance allowance will be correspondingly reduced. Surely that is the meanest cut of all. Mr. Marks lost both legs and he receives 15s. 6d. a week as a war pensioner. Surely he is entitled to the full disability allowance with all the trimmings, including the constant attendance allowance. According to the booklet issued by the Minister in February, Mr. Marks ought to get £9 6s. 4d. instead of only 15s. 6d.
Is it not possible for there to be a reappraisal of the Ministry's attitude towards men who were injured in the First World War, who are now so much older, and who, because of their wounds, are subjected to increased severity of the disabilities which come with old age? I hope that the Minister will tell me tonight and Mr. Marks and all his friends, that he is able to grant the full disability pension in this case.

10.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): Any case of severe disability or of severe mis-

fortune always excites the very deepest sympathy in this House, and I am sure that will always be so. That is certainly the case in the tragic misfortune which has overtaken Mr. Marks, whose case has been put so movingly by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman).
I cannot for one moment agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that many people in this House are becoming doubtful about the humanity and the fairness of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I would not admit that for one moment, because I am quite certain that the present Ministry and the old Ministry of Pensions have a very high reputation indeed in this House for their fair and sympathetic handling of personal cases under the war pensions scheme. That is borne out by the fact that in the more than three and a half years that I have been Parliamentary Secretary in the two Ministries, this is only the fourth personal case that has been raised on an Adjournment Motion. The last one was over a year ago. I am quite certain that if there were any truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Ministry's lack of sympathy, or doubts on the part of the House as to the fairness of the Ministry's dealings with pensioners, that would certainly not have been the case.
This is a war pension scheme. It is a scheme for war disabilities, and a pension can be awarded only in a case like this if it is medically certified to be causally related to war service. Otherwise, the man comes under the ordinary social security schemes, just like any other citizen. In this case, Mr. Marks has been in receipt of a 20 per cent. war pension —not 30 per cent. as the hon. Member said—which is the lowest one we can award, since 1919, for shrapnel wounds of the left arm and both legs. That was made permanent in 1924.
The hon. Member would appreciate that I must be entirely objective in arguing a case like this. Mr. Marks had been in regular work for a number of years. Then, 36 years after his wound, at the age of 58, he was admitted to hospital suffering from thrombo-angiitis obliterans, with cardiac enlargement, resulting in gangrene of both his legs. It was as a result of that condition that in October and November, 1953 he had both legs


amputated above the knee. The Ministry's doctors were in no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Marks was suffering from a generalised form of cardio-vascular disorder, and that neither his war disability nor his war service of 36 years before had played any part in his then existing condition.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Does that mean that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's advisers, having given full consideration to the question of the aggravation and acceleration of a condition which affects people who do not have these wounds, had taken into account the fact that the man had had wounds of both his lower limbs, both of which later suffered from this occlusive artero-sclerotic condition?

Brigadier Smyth: They took into account every shred of evidence in the case.
The British Legion took up this case in the first place—and we always advise anyone bringing a case against us to consult the British Legion, because it is of the very greatest help to the pensioner in making a claim of this sort—and the hon. Member later lent his weighty support to the British Legion claim. As he explained, it was upon the opinion put forward by Dr. O'Donnell, a local doctor, that they based their opposition to the Ministry ruling. Dr. O'Donnell put forward two points. He maintained that cases of comparatively young people seldom developed gangrene requiring amputation, and also that the condition was due to the pressure of scar tissue upon the blood vessels.
The Ministry doctors were in entire disagreement with Dr. O'Donnell, largely because the condition of the pensioner was a general one. It showed itself in the blood vessels of the retina, and all over the body. Nevertheless, before I had recommended it to them—as I should undoubtedly have done—they recommended to me, in order to give every chance to the pensioner, that we should ask for the opinion of an independent medical expert appointed by the Royal College of Physicians. That is generally considered to be a fair way of resolving any medical difference of this sort, and it is generally so regarded by all ex-Service associations.
An independent medical expert was appointed and both sides of the case were

submitted to him, including every possible detail that could be provided. In September of last year the independent medical expert gave us his report, and it was definite indeed. It was not in the least doubtful in any particular. He said he could not accept the opinion of Dr. O'Donnell, and he could not believe his opinion would gain credence from any independent body of medical opinion. The independent medical expert maintained that the amputations for gangrene would have occurred at the same time and at the same age if he had never suffered from any wounds at all.
I would mention just four points in the medical expert's report. He said, quite clearly, that Dr. O'Donnell's opinion was unsupported by clinical experience nor was such attribution recognised in any textbook of medicine. Secondly, he said that the condition of the arteries, the enlarged heart and auricular fibrillation had one common cause, and that was degenerative cardio-vascular disease. He disagreed with Dr. O'Donnell when he said that gangrene at the age of 59 was not a remarkably young age for this condition to lead to amputation of a leg or both legs. Fourthly, he said that bilateral amputation was to be expected sooner or later whenever gangrene had been caused by thrombo-angiitis obliterans.
In accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant, the Minister, having referred the matter to an independent medical expert, was of course bound to accept his advice, particularly as it was so completely definite in every single particular.
In conclusion, I would say that at least the hon. Member can be satisfied that he has explored every possible avenue to support the case of his constituent, and all I can say is that if I had been in his place I would have done exactly the same as he has done tonight. I think he has put his case in as moving and as convincing a way as he possibly could, and I know he will realise that, although I am in the very deepest sympathy with Mr. Marks in his very grave misfortune, I have to argue a case like this entirely objectively and in accordance with the medical evidence, which is very convincing indeed.
I can only say I regret very much that, although I sympathise deeply with Mr. Marks, I am unable to attribute the mis-


fortune which has overtaken him, 36 years after he suffered these wounds in the First World War, either to his war disabilities or to his war service, and I am sure that I could come to no other conclusion.

10.34 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not found it possible to give way to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I speak not as a layman but as a former chairman of a tribunal for the Ministry of Pensions, and as one who served it for many years.
We do not fully understand the causes of this condition. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary for a moment; he must take the advice of his experts, but I have always felt that because there is doubt about these causes we should give the man the benefit of that doubt. When a man has been wounded in both legs, even though a long time has elapsed since the injury, if there is even the slightest doubt I think the Ministry should consider the matter very carefully and should not hesitate to give the benefit of the doubt to the injured man.
It is unusual to see such a close coincidence as this—both legs having to

be amputated above the knee within three months in a case of thromboangiitis obliterans. Although we have speculated on many causes, we do not fully know what may be the primary cause. But if, as in this case, there might be the possibility of acceleration or aggravation because of injury to both lower limbs, even 36 or 38 years later, I feel that the Ministry might have stretched a point and given the man the benefit of the doubt.

Brigadier Smyth: The hon. Member has great experience of these matters and of the Ministry. It is precisely because we wanted a second opinion and because we took notice of what the local doctor said that we referred the matter to an independent medical expert of the highest repute. I am sure that in his heart of hearts the hon. Member agrees that the Ministry acted very properly in taking that step. I am sure he would have done the same.

Dr. Stross: I do not blame the Ministry.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.